so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit — Elysium House

Feels to me like you broadened the problem. This is too big for me to even attempt.

This is too big for me to even attempt. — mentos987

Fair enough, happy to hear your thoughts if you change your mind.

Though this is mainly focused on the United States, ideas concerning other countries and similar thought experimentation are certainly welcome. — Elysium House

That's a problem for me, since a) I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be; I don't see any way to reverse the process at this stage of dissolution. Maybe there has been no way back since Lincoln's decision to go to war... or even earlier, from the framing of the constitution and b) I can only envisage a workable solution on the global scale. (and c) I doubt any solutions is possible in the current climate)

That's a problem for me, since a) I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be; I don't see any way to reverse the process at this stage of dissolution. Maybe there has been no way back since Lincoln's decision to go to war... or even earlier, from the framing of the constitution and b) I can only envisage a workable solution on the global scale. (and c) I doubt any solutions is possible in the current climate) — Vera Mont

I understand, and that's a lot of good stuff to think about. Do you mind if I ask you what you think is likely to happen next given our actual situation as you see it?

I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be — Vera Mont

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States?

understand, and that's a lot of good stuff to think about. Do you mind if I ask you what you think is likely to happen next given our actual situation as you see it? — Elysium House

Sadly, either civil war or fascist-style dictatorship... unless... either the military step in, and I can't see where that goes, or climatic disasters or nuclear war put paid to the whole shebang. I don't see it as an American problem: the whole world is mad with closing panic.

Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States? — AmadeusD

It's just a name. The states haven't been united since the drawing of the Mason-Dixon line. Some federal governments, in some economic climates were able to hold it together more effectively than others, but in the last 40 years - since Reagan - the divide has been growing wider, while other rifts have been opening up. I see no way to reconciliation.

You are tasked with developing a path which leads away from U.S. Government expansion and global unification towards smaller systems of governmental power and authority.  Can this be done? — Elysium House

It seems like what you are asking for is a plan for devolution. There are factors (not necessarily means that are under anyone's control) that could lead to both devolution of the US Government's highly centralized function, and lead away from world unification.

First, the US Government is very large, very powerful, and very strong as a result of its history. The 50 states amount to a very large land mass, a very large population, and a very large economy--all with complex needs which have to be managed.

The key to devolution is decline and simplification of the world economy. Let's say that various factors --global heating, catastrophic agricultural failures, rising oceans, desertification, a failure of the Atlantic Ocean / Gulf Stream system, and population collapse all occur (there is a good chance that they will, at some point).

Given a severe decline in global economic activity, the necessity--or ability--of the U.S. Government to maintain its role in keeping shipping free and open would fade. The decline in global economic activity nears a deckle in American economic activity too. The US will experience severe climate-related changes like every other country.

The US economy will be considerably reduced, and all government levels in the US will be negatively affected. The ability to deliver will be reduced at the same time that the need for government service will spike (owing to severe climate changes).

I didn't "devise the path" of devolution through climate change; we all did that ourselves. However, we could speed up devolution by reducing government size and function before we are forced to by severe fiscal constraints. Isolationism is much cheaper than internationalism.

Similarly, regions of the US can be allowed/encouraged/forced to solve their problems themselves. Two examples: The states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes have formed a binding Compact agreeing to not allow transfers of water from from the Great Lakes system for any purpose. So, water can not be pumped out of Lake Michigan to provide water for a Wisconsin community outside of the Lake Michigan watershed. No water for Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, or Arizona, either. States in the Southwest have agreements for using the Colorado River. They will have to figure out how to divide up more water than there is in the Colorado watershed.

States dependent on the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri Rivers for water and transportation might decide on a restrictive compact. This would give Louisiana, for instance, protection from up-river states selling Mississippi River water to Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas (and beyond).

The Federal Government could leave it up to these three regions to solve their water problems.

I don't recommend devolution! It's a bad idea, but the world may be forced to become less centralized and more localized as the world economy declines under the burden of global heating,

I don't see it as an American problem: the whole world is mad with closing panic. — Vera Mont

Heavy, but very well written! I too have serious misgivings about the future. I think, in part, that's why this topic interests me. I look around and see a lot of potential and a lot to work with. You mentioned the Civil War a few times, and the division in modern America. Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous? Given a shift in attention from the national to the local, would that change the math at all for you?

Excellently written. I really enjoyed that. No success on the devolution though, so you fail! You can take that as a point of pride.
I particularly enjoyed your focus on the environmental factors. It never feels like we put enough focus on them (the substantial realities in planning).

Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous? — Elysium House

I can imagine 8 or so separate regional 'nations' working in some kind of uneasy trade and diplomatic relationship - so long as the populations are allowed free movement, so that people can find where they belong.

Given a shift in attention from the national to the local, would that change the math at all for you? — Elysium House

Yes, I think it might. The federal departments would have to be dismantled, which could not possibly done without disruption, and there is a huge problem with distributing resources, transportation, utilities and services. It would certainly not be easy, but I think there are enough brains and technology in America to get it done... if it were possible first to demilitarize police forces and neutralize the most toxic political elements. I can't see a way to that.

Decentralization requires the powerful to part with their power, which is something that virtually never happens whether one lives in a democracy or a dictatorial regime. That simply is the nature of man, power and power structures.

The first question is, how does one get the powerful to part with their power? Either they have some form of moral epiphany which propels them to do it voluntarily* or through violent revolution.

In a nutshell, it would require a revolution and a complete rebuilding of the system from scratch, basically like what happened when the US was founded. And then the circus and the slow process of power centralization and corruption simply starts over, because, again, that simply is the nature of man, power and power structures.

*which actually seems more unlikely under a democractic system than under an autocratic system, because of the number of people it would involve.

I'm an old man, but I fear that young people's futures will be dominated by ongoing catastrophic climate heating. Worse, the chance to avoid this is slipping away.

Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous — Elysium House

Sure. All states have a chance to be successfully self-governing and communally prosperous. I wouldn't count on it, however.

It's hard to predict how devolution and environmentally disadvantageous conditions will play out. There is a very good chance of population reduction (not voluntary--nature might decide to lighten the load). The standard of living could be well above the minimal survival level, say that of about 1890. People won't like it at first, but at the time, people were happy with it. A well-maintained outhouse just isn't that bad. If it's not well maintained, it's just a shit hole.

The really big problem is that everywhere, everybody now depends on an integrated world economy. That's likely to decline a lot. That means people will have to operate within much smaller networks of trade groups, like: The West Coast trade group; the Upper Midwest Trade Area; the New England-Mid Atlantic trading block, and so on.

The world used to operate that way before world trade and globalizing became the paradigm.

We are accustomed to blueberries in January (Peru); bananas always (various countries); melon in March, Strawberries in November, and so on. Great coffee everywhere all the time. That will probably come to a screeching halt. Tomatoes in December? IF you have enough green houses and wind/solar power. Bread, probably. Meat. Probably -- but like as not grass raised. Better that way (it does taste better), but quantity would be less generous. Milk? Maybe. The cows need to get pregnant. (No calves, no milk.). Dairy requires on-going herd growth. How much feed will farmers be able to afford in the winter?

A big question is whether the people within a given state will be able to get along with each other under difficult circumstances--never mind getting along with THOSE PEOPLE in THAT states.

Some states have better communal tendencies than others. Northern tier states tend to do better in collective action through government (at any level) than states in the south.

The EU has a principle called "Subsidiarity", which is that decisions should be made at the most local level possible. A Global issue such as climate change needs a global agenda to be agreed, and then local implementation. Likewise, we need global pollution limits, and local control and inspection.

The path for US government will be bi-directional according to this principle, a devolving of power to state and on to local government on the one hand, and and submission to, and support of, global organisation - the UN, court of Human rights, and other multi national bodies on the other.

Edit: another principle should also be to set a limit to the number of governing bodies having jurisdiction over anyone to - say - 5: global, (sub?)continental, state, county, and parish for example. [One more or less might be arguable.]

I fear that a political solution would not work. The power of government is illegitimate to begin with. It functions on monopoly and plunder. Taking power in such an institution requires one to wield illegitimate power against his fellows, something my own conscience could not bear.

A rapid abolition of any kind would be cruel to the unweaned, those who view the government as the solution to all their problems and rely on it to subsidize their lives. Generations of people who were raised under the auspices of that promise could be met with troubles I would wish on no one, like poverty, once they found themselves responsible for their own lives and communities. They would view you as if you killed their god and resentment would grow.

In my view the reversal of nanny government would occur naturally in tandem with a decline in statism, which is the defining belief of our age. The power and reach of the church, for instance, declined only as people stopped attending, participating, and believing in its authority.

The path for US government will be bi-directional according to this principle, a devolving of power to state and on to local government on the one hand, — unenlightened

Their revenue base is small and uncertain; they would have to depend too heavily on big business, which, in turn, would exert too much influence. Which is already the case in many jurisdictions.

and submission to, and support of, global organisation - the UN, court of Human rights, and other multi national bodies on the other. — unenlightened

I can't see Americans doing that. So far, they've resisted any submission to any international agreement.

The best solution, of course, would be blanket electoral and legislative reform. De-politicize the judiciary and law-enforcement. Separate state and church in fact, rather than theory. Enforce freedom of the press. Abolish the electoral college, lobbying and PACs. In fact, take financial patronage out of the process entirely; fund elections publicly and equally. (And forchrissake set a time limit on the damn things - the way things are, governance is one neverending political rally.) Bring in UN election oversight, as you might for any failed state trying to regain political stability, in order to prevent fraud and accusations of fraud.
Once you had legitimate, uncontested representative government - at all levels - they could go one to streamline and reorganize their agencies in a rational manner.
What are the odds of that happening in this dimension?

I can imagine 8 or so separate regional 'nations' working in some kind of uneasy trade and diplomatic relationship - so long as the populations are allowed free movement, so that people can find where they belong. — Vera Mont

I think this would be key. When I mentioned experimentation before, I was thinking along these lines. Differing individual strategies (state level or otherwise) that can still organize into local trade/commerce partnerships while maintaining cultural independence. The citizens of Maine focused on Maine instead of Nebraska, keeping an eye on basic economic needs and allowing for citizens to feel like they actually have a say in their government/future (as opposed to the apathy and hopelessness many seem to feel about our current political setup). Different political ideologies could be put to the test, and we could let the results speak for themselves . . . but that requires the ability for people to take their hands off of the wheel for other states/regional “nations” – and overlook many standards/ethics they may detest while still maintaining some peaceful cohesion. Tricky business!

if it were possible first to demilitarize police forces and neutralize the most toxic political elements. I can't see a way to that. — Vera Mont

What would a “demilitarized” police force look like compared to now? These toxic political elements, can you describe what you are referring to so I have a better picture?

I'm an old man, but I fear that young people's futures will be dominated by ongoing catastrophic climate heating. Worse, the chance to avoid this is slipping away. — BC

I can certainly understand and sympathize with this. I wouldn’t trust anyone who held little or no genuine concern for future generations. The situation is certainly heating up (no pun intended . . . well, some pun intended).

The standard of living could be well above the minimal survival level, say that of about 1890. People won't like it at first, but at the time, people were happy with it. A well-maintained outhouse just isn't that bad. If it's not well maintained, it's just a shit hole. — BC

I know this is weird . . . but I would love this. I feel like a cranky coot, but coming back to the internet after a long absence has been eye-opening. I think I’m now pretty much an aspiring luddite!

That means people will have to operate within much smaller networks of trade groups, like: The West Coast trade group; the Upper Midwest Trade Area; the New England-Mid Atlantic trading block, and so on. — BC

This is something many (if not most) would wholly reject. Goodbye modern convenience/luxury! I would like to see a renewed focus on domestic production of basic goods though. Feels unsettling to be so dependent on “others” for life’s basics.

A big question is whether the people within a given state will be able to get along with each other under difficult circumstances-- — BC

You’re right, that’s a major problem. Scarcity will drive many to lawlessness (regardless of the particular local law).

Hi Tzeentch!

Decentralization requires the powerful to part with their power, which is something that virtually never happens whether one lives in a democracy or a dictatorial regime. That simply is the nature of man, power and power structures. — Tzeentch

You’ve nailed a central issue were going to have to deal with, thank you for bringing it up. Part of what we’re talking about is a kind of power that is hard to find anywhere else in history, and both sides believe the other will use it for “evil”, so no one wants to put their gun down first (which is reasonable considering the reality of the situation at hand).

The first question is, how does one get the powerful to part with their power? Either they have some form of moral epiphany which propels them to do it voluntarily* or through violent revolution. — Tzeentch

Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften “moral epiphany” to a kind of rock bottom “moment of clarity” or is the addiction going to take us all the way down?

What would a “demilitarized” police force look like compared to now? — Elysium House

It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests.

These toxic political elements, can you describe what you are referring to so I have a better picture? — Elysium House

Oh, you know, regular death- and rape-threats against jurists and journalists; voter intimidation, gun lobby.... and, of course

Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften “moral epiphany” to a kind of rock bottom “moment of clarity” or is the addiction going to take us all the way down? — Elysium House

A revolution is usually the reaction to hitting a form of rock bottom. The problem is, the citizens will always hit rock bottom long before the elite will, and thus the motivation for radical change won't come from the elite.

Moreover, once such a stage has been reached, the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. As such, the leadership is incentivized to struggle until the very end.

I'm open to hearing examples that suggest otherwise. Maybe there are situations I am not considering.

Also, the "moral epiphany" isn't as unrealistic as one might think. History has known many great reformers who voluntarily ceded parts of their power to better govern their states. However, the larger the decision-making group at the top, the smaller the chance that it will consist of enough wise individuals who could push for such a move. Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems.

Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative.

There is a path to subsidiarity in the 10th Amendment of the US constitution -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So individual states can, and do, pursue independent policies in areas which do not infringe on the prerogatives of the Federal Government. Plenty of contention around the intention, of course.

At any rate, there is a way open for state governments to accomplish some levels of decentralization -- way short of succession. Maine and Nebraska can pursue an all-renewable energy policy. They can establish health-care-for-all for their residents. They can decide to teach German in their schools from kindergarten through college. They can tax and spend to their heart's content, and they can run miserly budgets and starve the public sector. They can do various things -- but they can't do foreign policy, interfere with interstate trade, and so on.

It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests. — Vera Mont

Police forces generally are constituted locally -- organized, supervised, and paid for locally. That hasn't prevented problems.

Agreed, the police rarely, if ever, need the armaments the Defense Department wants to get rid of--Tanks, helicopters, heavy fire power, etc.

The function of policing pretty much requires a license to search, seize, and destroy -- but very much within the law, with court issued warrants, close civil oversight, and so on. Policing neighborhoods to quiet down late-night noisy parties is one thing; taking down criminal enterprises in a state is something else altogether.

In the real world there are, and will be, vested interests which should and are going to get protection. I want the police to protect my house protected from arsonists and burglars; business owners want thieves arrested; transit users don't want crime taking place on buses and trains; drivers don't want to see drunks on the road. Most people, whatever their economic status, object to rioting, looting, destruction of infrastructure just for the hell of it.

All that is true - but so is overreaction to peaceful protest, breaking up legal strikes, 'clearing out' homeless encampments by any means, smashing down doors and shooting dogs, property forfeiture, and various other abuses. Having a warrant often just means the judge is on the same side as the vested interest that got him elected.

Yes, all that.

Peaceful protests (with a permit if they plan on marching down a major thoroughfare) breaking up strikes -- authorized or not, and the like interfere with civil liberties and alienate law enforcement (national guard, highway patrol, city police, sheriffs, etc.) from large groups of people.

I have mixed thoughts (and feelings) about homeless encampments. On the one hand, homelessness should not be criminalized. Neither should abject poverty be treated as criminal, in itself. On the other hand, we should 'tolerate' neither homelessness nor abject poverty, for several reasons:

a) homeless encampments are not a good thing for the homeless.
b) homelessness is not a lifestyle. It's a disaster.
c) many of the homeless are there because of significant problems -- drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness--maybe all three. They need residential treatment and housing,
d) homeless encampments become public health problems -- not by their mere existence, but because of public urination, dedication, drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, et al.
e. It isn't that nobody can figure out what to do about the homeless. What is missing is the will to do it -- yes, to shove it down the throats of various neighborhoods that don't want multiunit housing of any kind, especially not THOSE PEOPLE.

Cities used to have housing for chronic alcoholics, broken people, the immigrated elderly, etc. It was called "skid row", "the slum", "SROs (single room occupancy 'hotels'), and the like. All of it was low grade, sub-standard housing, BUT it provided off-street housing for a very low cost. States also once had large state hospitals which provided readily accessible residential treatment. Great places? No, but then, psych wards in the best hospitals are not where most people want to spend more than few minutes.

We don't have to go back to skid row housing, but something like SRO housing WITH services (basic needs as well as treatment) would go a long way to solve the problem.

Some cities have too many homeless to depend on any one solution. Mid-sized cities like Minneapolis could solve a lot of its homeless encampment problems with SROs. (It would have to create them; they tore all of them down decades ago.) Major cities like Los Angeles are going to need every available option.

A guaranteed income would go a long way to solve the abject poverty problem.

So, I'm against homeless encampments but am willing to spend public dollars to provide long-term shelter solutions.

A guaranteed income would go a long way to solve the abject poverty problem. — BC

So true! As would more resources allocated to low-income housing, welfare, health and other and social services, as would curbing the power of property speculators and moneylenders.
Making the police deal with societal problems with force turns them into villains instead of protectors and attracts the wrong kind of people to policing.

Hi Nos4A2

The power of government is illegitimate to begin with. It functions on monopoly and plunder. Taking power in such an institution requires one to wield illegitimate power against his fellows, something my own conscience could not bear. — NOS4A2

Fair enough, so let’s start chipping away

A rapid abolition of any kind would be cruel to the unweaned, those who view the government as the solution to all their problems and rely on it to subsidize their lives. Generations of people who were raised under the auspices of that promise could be met with troubles I would wish on no one, like poverty, once they found themselves responsible for their own lives and communities. They would view you as if you killed their god and resentment would grow. — NOS4A2

Is this broken citizen a permanent fixture doomed to failure and the production of multiple future failures? Does potential exist within them, and can it be ignited? Keep in mind, this thought experiment affords you a wide variety of methods to reshape the game board, even if such methods seem wildly unrealistic in the current system. Are you sure you don’t want to take a swing? I would like to see a system that doesn’t function on monopoly and plunder as well, so paint it for me!

The power and reach of the church, for instance, declined only as people stopped attending, participating, and believing in its authority. — NOS4A2

As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state?

It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests. — Vera Mont

Thank you for clarifying! When considering the formation of separate mini-states (or regional groups), how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? If it is the US Gov, then we haven’t we expanded the state to move your rules across state lines (and failed the project)? Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues you’ve mentioned?

the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. — Tzeentch

But what about a new leadership, say one that was locally harvested and directly connected to the wellbeing of their citizens/ruling territory? Such a scenario is possible in this thought experiment.

Maybe there are situations I am not considering. — Tzeentch

In this scenario, you have the ability to alter economics, war/defense, government, and (even if just by extension) society/culture. Even if your propositions are unlikely, if it is technically possible (given the totality of human potential and existing infrastructure) you can be as creative as you want so long as the end result is preferable to the current/future state.

Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems. — Tzeentch

No arguments from me on this.

Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative. — Tzeentch

Let's try to avoid that then.

So individual states can, and do, pursue independent policies in areas which do not infringe on the prerogatives of the Federal Government. Plenty of contention around the intention, of course. — BC

Here’s another area we’re going to be forced to examine: What if it is necessary to go around (dissolve, restrict, reinvent) the Federal Gov? If you can only prevent disaster, civil war, and/or global catastrophe by doing so does it not become the most logical/ethical pathway?

At any rate, there is a way open for state governments to accomplish some levels of decentralization -- way short of succession. Maine and Nebraska can pursue an all-renewable energy policy. They can establish health-care-for-all for their residents. They can decide to teach German in their schools from kindergarten through college. They can tax and spend to their heart's content, and they can run miserly budgets and starve the public sector. They can do various things -- but they can't do foreign policy, interfere with interstate trade, and so on. — BC

This is certainly true, though we’re tied together through government taxation, elections, and international behavior. For example, the immigration policy of blue states (and their political leadership) drastically impacts red states as well (some could argue, in the case of Texas, far more). The majority of Illinois or Indiana may be against backing Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan in this or that conflict, but it is America that ultimately goes in and they’ll be dragged along with it. All this is to say that we do have license to experiment, but to a very limited degree considering national constraints and the bleed over from one local culture to the other of differing methods. If these constraints are good, if the experimentation is working, then the end result of restricted plurality seems to be an increasingly volatile “unified” state.

a) homeless encampments are not a good thing for the homeless.
b) homelessness is not a lifestyle. It's a disaster.
c) many of the homeless are there because of significant problems -- drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness--maybe all three. They need residential treatment and housing,
d) homeless encampments become public health problems -- not by their mere existence, but because of public urination, dedication, drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, et al.
e. It isn't that nobody can figure out what to do about the homeless. What is missing is the will to do it -- yes, to shove it down the throats of various neighborhoods that don't want multiunit housing of any kind, especially not THOSE PEOPLE — BC

Hear Hear!

As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state? — Elysium House

I don't desire it, but many of the citizens would, so of course it has to be allowed scope. In my experience, the period of liberal ecumenicalism of the late 60's and early 70's worked pretty well. There was a proliferation of break-away congregations for the deaf, with folk music, etc. Such a tolerant environment can only exist in a prosperous and optimistic period.

how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? — Elysium House

I'll have to give that some thought - after having a birthday drink with my SO. Might be a while....

Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? — Elysium House

how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? — Elysium House

For me, the preferred overseer would be the the World Court, under UN auspices. Not only is their
declaration of human rights completely acceptable, but this would also insure parity and co-operation among police forces. Next best candidate would be Interpol.

Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues you’ve mentioned? — Elysium House

Differently, yes. Inhumanley, no.

What if it is necessary to go around (dissolve, restrict, reinvent) the Federal Gov? If you can only prevent disaster, civil war, and/or global catastrophe by doing so does it not become the most logical/ethical pathway? — Elysium House

My starting position is pro-government (federal, state, county, municipal, township), while granting that government (and any human organization) will generally embody the flaws of their constituents, sooner or later. Civil War would be an unmitigated disaster for this country -- it is generally a disaster wherever it happens. Only through a peaceful, sweeping, popular socialist revolution could the central government be dissolved. There is no chance oof such a revolution occurring in the foreseeable future.

A democracy of workers could/should be organized as a decentralized democracy. in this democratic socialist arrangement, Marx's dictum "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" would be the rule. All problems would not disappear by any stretch of the imagination (it isn't intended to be a utopia), and people on the ground where the problems occurred would have to work out solutions.

Industrial democracy, democratic socialism, the withered state, the fair distribution of resources (based on need) ARE certainly UTOPIAN in flavor, if not in fact. In the very long meantime before we reach utopia, we are stuck with the state, with capitalism, et al. That's the framework we are doomed to work within, I don't like it, but I don't see any way around it.

Fascism is, of course, another possibility. Let's home that it does not become a reality in any way, shape, manner, or form.

and people on the ground where the problems occurred would have to work out solutions. — BC

But at least they'd get a chance to do it! People can do this; they have done this. Sure, there will be disruptive elements to deal with; there will be attempts at corruption to guard against; competition and aggression will have to be given constructive outlets; conflict between individuals will need mediation; resources must be distributed fairly; the young must be guided... People have done all of these things successfully when they were free to find their own solutions.

Fascism is, of course, another possibility. Let's hope that it does not become a reality in any way, shape, manner, or form. — BC

I'm very much afraid several of its forms are looming on the horizon.