[Under Democracy], a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two (Lysander Spooner).
Democracy and various “representative” electoral forms of government have had centuries to achieve what they claim they offer: self-governance to their citizens. And have never succeeded in doing so. Over centuries of representative governance and elections, nowhere in the modern West has self-governance been achieved. It is impossible to attain this when people differ. Even when the government does its best via media and education to get everyone to think the same, various power interests, political factions, corporations, activists, and more fight for the power to control national parties, media outlets, educational establishments, and more, leading to division. Plus, humanity’s natural diversity will lead to differences of view, often profound; thus, none can achieve self-governance.
Further, the modern state keeps its citizens in check with its monopoly on legal violence (police force, prisons, military, etc.), threatening force and fines against the non-compliant whether they consent or not. Professor and philosopher Jason Brennan wrote, “In a democracy, we are not volunteers, we are conscripts, we cannot opt-out, we are forced into it…governments do not merely advise us to follow their rules…they enforce their laws and rules with violence or threats of violence.”
Not a single person gets the governance and society they desire; Republicans never get to control everything as they like, and nor do Democrats, or third-party nonvoters. Even if your “side” has power, they cannot fully implement their agenda, and in all likelihood, you would, if you could, do things differently. Most vote for the lesser of two evils, not because they deem everything their party does ideal.
This article will focus on how things would look if we implemented my ideal political system today, with the goal of achieving self-governance for all.
Consent
In a self-governing system, all people are treated politically equally, share the same rights to live as they wish, and lack the power and authority to force others into a system of governance they disagree with. No one is superior to another just because they have more numbers behind them or because others have given them authority.
If self-governance is to be achieved, consent rather than compulsion must be at the heart of the system and available to all, regardless of their political preferences. In my system, self-governance is vital. To echo Mark 2:27 in a different context, the government is made to benefit man, not man to benefit the government. So if a group of people wished to secede and become autonomous at any future time, they would be unhindered in doing so. The land and the law are the people’s; they own them, with the government as their steward—the protector and enforcer for those people. The law and government only exist to serve the people.
I would not wish to force anyone into a system they disagreed with, so undermine secession is always legal and open to all, to each individual. No one would be forced under this system, as that would violate the principle of self-governance.
Many modern social ills and examples of mistreatment of people are due to the lack of self-governance. Would minorities impose harsh laws of discrimination on themselves? No majority or governmental power could oppress them if they were allowed to split off independently to govern themselves, as under my system they would be. Further, the only way to achieve self-governance within a country of diverse opinions is via decentralization, to which we will now turn.
Decentralization
To achieve self-governance, we would ultimately abolish the modern regulatory state and all current centralized authority. Each county or town (perhaps a few counties joined together, or even a smaller state) would become completely autonomous, able to create its own laws and make its own diplomatic arrangements with other counties and countries.
And if a section of a town wishes to form a new village, they are free to do so. People can seek self-governance no matter how small a minority they are; no majority can dictate to them, or steal their right to self-governance. Even a single family can create an area with their laws and customs to live by if they wish to be isolated. However, the laws of each territory decide how people operate within that territory. So, when traveling to a different region, the local laws reign.
This would result in thousands of diverse governmental systems people could choose from and move to. It would enable everyone to have the government of their choosing. In one town, we could have a libertarian society, the next might be Communist, but neither could outvote or impose their ways on the other. They would have no authority over smaller minority groups. One area might be purely democratic, where the majority decides all matters, and may have elections and politics. The next area could be monarchical and conservative, not allowing any legislature, elections, politicians, or manipulation of the law—devoid of all political strife and action.
Some towns might be progressive and have written laws, allowing their law to evolve or change over time. Others might be conservative, with unwritten customs lived out and never changing no matter what a future majority within this section or its rulers desire, ensuring a constant law/liberty for the people within. They would not need to worry about elections, rulers, and so on since nothing could alter their customs.
In this system, the totalitarian community is just as free to live as they desire as a libertarian society. Everyone has perfect equality to control their own destiny. Between the realms, there would be no need for strife, hatred, anger, discord, etc., since each section is powerless to impose its ways on another. A society built upon the Democratic Party would never have to fear Donald Trump. A Republican society would be free of another Joe Biden. No one would have to get angry with or outspend the other over politics. No one would have to donate money, spend time fighting, arguing, or savagely discrediting opponents; and everyone would get self-governance.
It would be comparable to each brand of every political party winning each election. You could join a “Republican area,” a “Democratic area,” a “conservative” area, a “liberal” area, and so forth. There would be thousands of areas to choose from. One section wanting legal abortion would never have to worry about Christians taking away their “rights,” while a Christian village can follow its view of God’s commands and outlaw the procedure. One area might have government-funded public education, the next might only offer homeschooling, and the next might allow you to choose from any form you desire.
We would have Catholic Republican areas, Catholic Democrat and libertarian areas, Mormon areas, Baptist areas, secular areas, Methodist areas, and on and on. One town might allow immigration, another might allow visitors, traders, and temporary workers but not permanent settlement, and a third might outlaw all entry by outsiders. Libertarians who never have a chance at election success could have numerous areas with their own policies. Libertarians differ on subjects like drugs, abortion, and police, yet under this system they could have many areas with various policies on these issues. People could be separated by race, religion, or anything else one could imagine. If redheads want their own colony, so be it. Diversity would be embraced and protected under the law.
A Lottery
One way to slowly implement this would be to have a list drawn up, comprising numerous different possible governmental systems and created by professors, judges, think tanks, political party leaders, news hosts, and other influencers and laypeople (this list can always be added to by anyone). Then, every adult who would like to move to these new societies votes on the preferred system. Land is then purchased (this power would be temporary—and to fund this massive project the federal government must sell off much of our military bases and all foreign property, and end foreign aid) by the state or federal authorities or provided by philanthropists and given to the people who agree to the form of government. This would start implementing tiny little self-governing societies across the land. Each state would have “liberal,” “conservative,” “libertarian” and so on counties; those that applied could move there, and they would become autonomous upon completion.
The states would also use state-owned land (often undeveloped) and create various third-party districts that would likewise become completely autonomous. This could be repeated as needed. To help facilitate this lottery, the largest landowner in the country, who owns 27% of the land area, that is, the federal government, would also initiate their own program providing land to settlers based on voting results, creating more autonomous areas similar to Native American reservations.
Each state would also take its highest few conservative counties and allow them full rein of governance. Their own constitution and laws would be implemented unhindered by Democrats, and no Democrats would be allowed to participate in or affect governance, likewise with the most liberal counties in reverse. Liberals in conservative counties could move to the newly formed liberal counties, and conservatives would leave those liberal areas for the conservative ones.
United groups of like-minded individuals would begin to emerge, and self-government would be achieved. This process would allow local economies and societies to integrate into the surrounding areas that have remained unchanged.
A negative aspect of this option is the difficulty of moving people across the country or state to the newly purchased and created areas; some might not be able to afford to move, and some might not wish to. But if a liberal in a conservative county wants to move to the new liberal one, the conservative in the liberal country equally wants out! And if millions of people can cross the world to enter America illegally, legal movement within the country or state can be accomplished relatively easily. Thousands of libertarians associated with the free state project are already moving to New Hampshire, though they’re receiving far less benefit from it than my idea would offer.
Lastly, individuals, towns, or sections of towns could also split off from the state they are a part of and create their little autonomous districts without moving at all, either adopting one of the proposed governmental systems or simply taking their governance into their own local town hands, no longer connected to the state or federal government. They could then make their own diplomatic and political agreements with their former state if they so wish.
It seems likely that the majority of Americans, perhaps three quarters, would not desire to relocate or change their political system (they likely deem it imperfect but would not desire to leave family, friends, jobs, etc.). In which case this land owned by the state, mixed with philanthropy and the few heaviest leaning (left or right) counties, towns, or cities in each state becoming all one way and autonomous, along with the choice of small towns, sections, or families breaking off as desired, could very well be all that is needed to give everyone who wishes to “escape” our two-party system a chance to do so—leaving most of the country largely unaffected by the change.
So long as all those who desire their own society have an area to join, allow every state and even the federal government to operate as usual; only the newly-created autonomous realms would change, or those sections that broke off from existing ones. They would operate on their own, allied (if they chose) with America but without local, state, or federal interference. They would be wholly independent, having as much or as little interaction with the rest of America as they desire. Some federal and state-owned land would be reserved for future districts to be created.
Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole
While the above might accomplish self-governance, and many who like the idea might want to stop there, the end goal of my ideal system would be to abolish the current federal and state powers after these autonomous realms have been established (they are entirely left alone) and break down America into thousands of tiny counties, towns, and various realms, all autonomous of each other.
All would be, in general, close to or equal in territory size or at least in “valuable” assets and resources. Nothing too large; nothing is to be any larger than its current state size but most would be the size of a county or town. Even if many of these areas wish to keep the same system they had before, so that a dozen districts in a row operate identically, they would still be separated.
Time would be needed so that each area could make trade agreements with those outside of them, similar to how states operate between each other and the federal government with other countries. All would be done locally. Perhaps, to slow the pace of change, each year, a new county, town, and city in each state could be designated newly autonomous until they are all reduced to about the same size and value. This would provide extra time to gear towards self-sufficiency and manage diplomacy, food supply, trade, and more. We would then be placed under a completely new governmental system, the Kingdom of America.
The Kingdom of America
Instead of bosses above us with the authority to pass laws and threaten us with imprisonment or fines, America would have a servant—that is a king—and a royal family, but their purpose would be more about what they prevent than what they do. Establishing a king prevents those who desire to be at the pinnacle of power (politicians and their corporate backers) from attaining it. It removes politics, elections, strife, centralized power, the ability to control others and force them under your dictates, and more from being realized. The king defends all of the local autonomous realms from more substantial political blocs that would seek to subjugate them based on superior money, power, or number of soldiers. His authority prevents others from taking you over, allowing self-government to be maintained. He should be honored and loved by all for this reason.
At the head of this new realm of America is a hereditary king, one born to the position, not one who would seek it. He receives no extra power or money for any action he takes, and could give no favors to any section of the country. He rules only within his own realm, which is the standard size of the thousands of mini-kingdoms across the nation. His only real job at the national level would be to ensure one realm does not invade another and to protect against/help fight off invasion. But even here, he would not be in command of all the armies across the country but only that of his own little realm. The king would have his autonomous realm from which he derived his funds and soldiers. The king’s only policy interaction with foreign nations would be to ensure free trade (though individual realms could impose tariffs within their spheres) and be a symbol of peace and goodwill to other countries. No taxation or regulations across the nation would ever be imposed or could be; the king’s realm must be self-sufficient from taxation within that realm. He has no authority to impose any laws or taxes or commands outside of his own district.
The “capital” would feature public displays of Christ and Christianity and an area designated for the royal family. It is also possible that the royal family (it rather than the realm in which it resides is the government) could move from realm to realm. Other districts might “host” the royal family and king for a set time if they desired. But he holds no authority within this new realm he is visiting. It would be more of a prestigious, symbolic visit.
We would evacuate and possibly sell most or all of our military bases, foreign territory, etc., and bring our military personnel back home. We would avoid war at all costs and seek friendship with other nations. We would not go to war unless invaded on our own territory. We would not subjugate any nation we did go to war with, even after victory. At most, we would seek compensation for losses and put another foreign nation/ally in charge or, more desirable, the nation itself back in command. While we would desire to be friendly with all nations, we would avoid alliances forcing us into another war. At all costs, we would attempt to live peacefully.
Some realms within the country might have conscription, but nationally there would be none. It would be the king’s duty to muster men in his realm and lead them into war. He could call on the realms (as do the local lords, presidents, governors etc. of the other realms) for help. But it is up to each autonomous area to decide how or whether to respond. If they do not deem the invasion a threat or think the war unjust, they are under no obligation to aid. It may be that if we come under invasion, 50% of the realms conscript and send all the aid they can, 25% ignore the call for aid, and 25% send only willing volunteers and donations.
Civil War?
What about civil wars? If one autonomous area cannot subjugate another by voting, what is to prevent it from doing so by military invasion? This is where the only aspect of domestic centralization occurs. In my “national” system, the king’s realm and every autonomous area would have a force (if they chose), and the leaders of each realm would take an oath upon coming to their position never to invade another territory and to help defend other realms from invasion—if doing that was not contrary to their own local laws and ideals. So if one area invaded another, it would be the oath-bound duty of thousands of realms to send help and fight off the invader.
Further, the hope is that, due to the removal of centralized politics, each section would have no political reason to hate another and would also see strength in unity. By fighting for another realm’s freedom, they are really protecting themselves because they are defending their own right to be self-governed; if they were invaded, they would also want help. Hopefully, the blessing of attaining actual self-governance would be a motivator to comply. I imagine extensive volunteers coming forth, a few small but well-trained armies able to assist. Even if only 10% of realms responded, any attempted invader would be drastically outnumbered since the districts have been reduced in individual size and might. Expansion would not be an enticing option.
So each realm would have agreed not to invade or impose on another, with a chance of losing their self-governance for a repeat offense. Another option for egregious violations would be for the people within the offending district to be deported out of the country, and a new population with new policies to then move in. The harmed area would receive just compensation for its losses from the former district before it is expelled. This would provide yet another deterrent to invasion, as the people within the district would rebel against wayward local authorities who desired to invade another. The people should always be the first deterrent to their own local authorities.
Difficulties
No governmental plan is perfect; having a need of government itself implies imperfection. Before the Fall of Man in Genesis, and before sin, there was no government. God gave only two rules at the dawn of humanity: have sex and eat (but not of the forbidden fruit, one tree among thousands, testing and allowing for free will). It is due to imperfection that we even have a government, in an attempt to make that imperfection imperfectly less evil.
If we now have thousands of counties, towns, and autonomous villages, how do we deal with crimes committed by outsiders in those realms? The laws of each district determine how crimes are judged. When you move to an area or operate in it, you are under their laws and jurisdiction; if you commit a crime within it, they judge you under their law. And their law can punish outsiders more harshly than their own people!
In other cases, individuals or small groups wishing to secede from an established territory may only take private property with them that they own (or purchase land from the realm if both parties are willing). Further, suppose they continue to use the roads of the former district to which they belonged. In that case, the district can impose a toll or tax on them as they are now technically traveling “internationally”, or disallow them from using the roads.
Individuals can live as they wish by leaving any system they desire, but they cannot hold a majority hostage.
Another issue with the move to purely local economies and politics is that corporations would likely be forced to sell specific establishments to local owners. Or the corporation itself might decentralize and sell to local employees. However, with more variation and competing realms, they will also be given improved opportunities. More libertarian tax-free, low-regulation zones that welcome them would provide better chances to make profits.
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of local rule would be handling disputes between bordering districts. But remember, tribal communities have achieved this for thousands of years (often peacefully) throughout history, so it can be done. Plus, my system has added incentives to maintain peace.
Think of a challenging circumstance where two realms are located adjacent to each other, and one district is allowing pollutants from their factories to go downstream to the other area that is “green” and has outlawed these pollutants within their realm. This, they say, is a form of invasion, as others outside are intruding on them to their detriment.
The hope is that diplomatic agreement can be reached between the two conflicting realms, but if they cannot agree on their own, they need some option besides war to resolve a conflict; no district is allowed to start a war with another, or they face all other realms.
So, if two realms cannot come to terms, they can appeal to a court made up of judges from willing realms across the land. The judges are performing a service and are not paid, and each district determines how theirs is chosen, appointed, elected, or otherwise. They do not “meet” and hear cases in a single location like the U.S. Supreme Court but travel to the areas of dispute, or receive the information in their home realms and decide.
The case is brought before the court to see if a genuine violation meriting recompense has occurred. First, the offended territory must establish that it is being intruded into on its own land and its laws violated. Then, it must show that there is evident harm being done within its territory and against its laws. Judges can investigate the accused realm (if that realm allows them in) to assess the situation. But each side will be able to make its own case.
After the judges have viewed all the evidence, the accused realm is found guilty only if 80% or more of the judges agree. After a guilty verdict, the judges decide what is just compensation.
As in in the Middle Ages, infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and so on would be under local control. The towns could tax to maintain them or charge travelers through tolls, or private companies could do so in exchange for toll-collecting rights, offering their expertise to realms across the land. Districts could cooperate and fund long highways together, and traveling merchants or guild/corporation members would pass along them, offering to trade for food and other goods or to provide expert services such as education and more to the different realms.
Moving from a subsidized, centralized industrial food system to a much more locally self-sufficient economy would present challenges for some. But instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, various realms could try new solutions, adopt successful ones, and discard the rest. Recently, urban farming has exploded in popularity, demonstrating its efficiency and potential to alleviate the challenges posed by our reliance on long-distance food supply chains. While merchants and trade can still provide for cities as they have in the past, urban farming—where land can be allocated just outside the city, reducing transportation costs—has proven to be effective.
According to renowned organic farmer Joel Salatin, a city in China was granted permission to build a new urban area as long as it could feed itself—and it succeeded! Solutions such as rooftop gardens, greenhouses, abandoned buildings repurposed for agriculture, and shared grazing areas have all contributed to this self-sufficiency. So even cities can feed themselves if it becomes a necessity. They do not currently, as it is not in their economic interest to do so under our current system.
However, in my proposed system, many people would leave the cities and find country life more affordable and profitable. Large cities have many disadvantages for those living in them and are only maintained through taxes, large-scale transport, and other factors. While they may not face a decline as significant as the fall of Rome, I predict some form of migration from cities to towns and rural areas. This would support and encourage self-sufficiency while avoiding the subsidization of centralization and urban economic preferences.
America is geographically isolated, protected by two oceans, and is unlikely to experience an invasion. Additionally, the desire for free trade and avoiding involvement in wars with other nations would save money and hopefully prevent our creating enemies, as with our current interventionist military practices we all too often do. We would not be as reliant on the world economy, and therefore would have no reason (or legal ability) to interfere in other countries’ affairs. Instead, we would aim to be as self-sufficient as possible while still allowing for free trade, a good friend to any nation of the world.
However, the threat of invasion remains something that must be allowed for, however unlikely it may seem. Could a localized economy and military protect itself from invasion? Not as well as our current system, but fear is a prime motivator for politicians and the modern state, stirred up to scare their population into supporting more government authority, increased taxation, and building up a military. In other words, the threat of an invasion of American soil is exaggerated both today and in this hypothetical proposal.
America’s military and economy are far beyond what is needed to protect itself. Looking at the economy, we are by far the world leader. If we were to compare the economies of different states, we would find that Georgia is akin to Belgium, Illinois to Turkey, Florida to Spain and Switzerland, New York to Canada, Ohio to Austria, Oklahoma to Hungary, Wisconsin to Ireland, Indiana to Israel, and Texas to Italy. The combined economic strength would provide more than enough resources to defend the country. Additionally, other nations would likely avoid conflict with us as we would withdraw worldwide, reducing the chances of conflicts of interest. The benefits of remaining allied and engaging in free trade are immense.
Our military is just as enormous; for example, as of 2025 and including our nine helicopter carriers, America has 20 aircraft carriers, while the next most is China with five. We have nearly half of the world’s carriers.
Higher education would likely continue as it did in the Middle Ages (or today’s private and charter schools and universities), owned and funded by churches, philanthropists, corporations, alumni, and others. There is no doubt that “schooling” would be less vital and higher education would be for the intelligent, hardworking students who desired it only. Public schools were created to form the worldview of the individual so as to control their future votes, and to train for hourly wage labor in factories. With this new economy they would be almost obsolete, at least nationally. Local communities could have obligatory education within their district if they chose to do so.
A Realm of my Own
If I were to create my own realm within this rearranged Kingdom of America, it would look very similar to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Shire. It would be a wholly new territory, and would be a rural area where we would rid ourselves of bureaucrats, insurance companies, corporations, advertisers, politicians, lawyers, and legislatures.
A local lord who is simply a symbolic “head” of his people would pass down the crown hereditarily. The first lord (who would be chosen by some acceptable mechanism) must be someone who does not seek the position and so would essentially be “forced” into it, and honored for serving the people. He could never have been involved with politics, and never have held a place of power over others as a boss or otherwise, preferably having been a servant. Ideally, he would be someone who donates to nonprofits and volunteers for charitable work, or coaches a local sports team. The lord/king must also have enough offspring to ensure a healthy and continued line. The position would not be premeditated, sought after, or desired but a duty or service performed by someone sacrificing for his people. He is not paid for his service and owns the same amount of land as everyone else (see distributism below).
His only function is to call people to war if the realm is invaded and perhaps help train for war, but the people own the weapons. Each family is a mini-militia of its own. The armed and trained families also provide a decentralized and immediate “front line” defense against would-be criminals. While there are a few sheriffs, the main police force is the people themselves.
Laws
Regarding its laws, my realm would be a form of libertarian Christendom where Christ is placed above the people and state; he is the ultimate authority. The government is severely limited, with no ability to increase its power. The laws governing everyone, including the lord of the realm, would be set in stone, like the Ten Commandments. Man—whether a present or a future king, or a majority of the people voting (there is no voting or politics in my realm)—could not alter them. And all the laws would apply equally to everyone, from the lord to the least. No separate tax rates, privileges, or handouts of any kind could be given to anyone or any section. Everything would equally affect all or none.
Most governance would come from and within families, not the government. Crime rates would be low, because people were raised in a Christian atmosphere with an educational background to match. Growing up in a moral, close-knit community will have taught them to respect others, putting others above themselves. People would honor their word; instead of months of paperwork and thousands of dollars spent on it, a handshake would settle private transactions. The laws would be very anarcho-monarchist, with the moral culture rather than laws primarily governing people.
There would be no allowance for governmental debt, foreign aid or intrusion on private property or rights, and the government could not take from private citizens, or impose burdens of licenses, regulations, and permits. There would also be no allowances for subsidies, bailouts, the devaluing of money or government land ownership, and no legislature run by men adapting and creating laws. It would be up to each family on its own plot of land to decide how to trade with other families, or how to handle long-distance trade outside of the mini-realm.
There would be no IRS or income tax, heavy taxation, welfare, or property tax, and those living self-sufficient lifestyles would not even face a tax! Tariffs would provide what is needed, and if not (assuming almost no trade with the outside world), a very low tax would be placed on the heads of household only, and only on surplus production at a fixed rate—never above 5%, even in war. But tariffs should be more than enough. All taxation must affect everyone equally, and no taxation could be placed on self-sufficiency, only on increases over that.
With no direct taxation, people could live self-sufficient lives without needing to make money or pay taxes! They could live free of government taxation if they chose. And with a fixed rate, they would not be punished disproportionately for building up if they desired to.
The functions of realm-wide governance in this system are confined to defense from foreign invasion (even here there is no draft, only willing citizens mustered by the lord) and the self-sustaining, nonprofit Post Office. The postal employees are local citizens who would not be “federal” but appointed by the local community (in the manner they decide) from a selection of volunteers performing a service. Even the severely limited sheriffs would be local to the towns and elected by a council of wise, moral, Christian elders of those communities appointed by the extended families or towns.
If called to help fight off an invasion in another section of America, it is up to the lord to decide if it is a just cause (the council will render an opinion), and if it is, he musters the militia who are willing to join him.
Justice and the law only come into play when one person’s action injures another. Many sins in the Bible are between God and man, and the state is not authorized to intervene unless someone harms another person.
There would be no prison system. Instead, justice would be swiftly administered by the council. Lawyers and insurance companies would be obsolete. Crimes would not be against the state and justice rendered would be based on the guilty party compensating the victim and also prevention of future crimes, by the death penalty if need be. The guilty would need to work off what they owe to the victim, and they would not receive tax-funded housing or food via prison. Those severely violating the customs could face expulsion or the death penalty, depending on the nature of the violation.
Further, diversity would reign, and the families would handle almost everything; one property might govern itself vastly differently from the next. It might even handle the same issue or dispute one way based on their judgment, and another way the next time under different circumstances. It would be customs based on the people that controlled, not top-down one-size-fits-all from above. The families would decide things like education, no state education is allowed.
Families would decide how to handle “in-house” disputes among tribal/family members, especially for minor encroachments but even for murder. So if any crime occurred within an extended tribal family (the victim was not from another family and this was done on the victim’s lands), it would be the family’s responsibility (they could pass it on to the realm authority if they desired—or if any member of the victim’s more immediate family desired) to decide how to handle the matter. If the crime was committed against someone “outside” the family and in another’s territory, they are judged by the victim’s family’s customs. The hope is that a close-knit community would not seek vengeance or punishment and could handle most everything locally, peacefully, reasonably, and personally outside any form of court or law. A few general principles and rules follow for disputes that cannot be resolved by the families or local town council.
For theft of another family’s property, the guilty party must compensate them five times the amount. If they cannot pay (or obtain aid to help pay—from family or friends), they pay all they have and are expelled from the land. For non-self-defense-related assault, the victim is compensated the value of losses and suffering five times over, and repeat offenders (only at the national level) are also expelled from the realm. For rape, penalties are loss of property (transferred to the victim as compensation), immediate expulsion, or possible death penalty. For premeditated murder, capital punishment. The elders (see below) and the lord make up the national court.
Only if the victim was from another family or lands, and the crime occurred on the aggressor’s lands, would the realm-wide rules apply—and this is assuming both families could not come to terms on their own. This should keep the majority of disputes between families of the victim and aggressor. However, some will be forced into the realm-wide collection of laws, made purposely harsh with a view to encouraging local resolutions.
But governance would be almost entirely at this local level. Only what could not be done at the family level would pass to the town level; only what could not be done at the town level would be managed realm-wide (assuming multiple towns in this county-sized realm of mine). The higher level would do only what the lower level could not.
It would not be a libertarian retreat for someone who does not want their society regulated by the basic tenets of Christianity. Thieves, rapists, and murderers would find this realm very oppressive indeed. Further, all things “state” and public (however amounting to next to nothing at the national level, except perhaps for some ceremonial displays) would be accommodating or promoting Christianity. No public support (thereby showing acceptance) of secularism or another religion is allowed. This does not mean everyone must be Christian, or that non-Christians would not be welcome; it just means society, laws, customs, and public displays would be Christian. Muslims would lack the same status and freedom because they would not have the same influence on society and laws as Christians. Thus we also need areas where they can do the same as Christians in my realm, attain self-governance and have a realm guided by the Qur’an and hadiths. Likewise Jews, Hindus, pagans and so forth, and secularists too would have their own realms.
Distributism
No person, corporation or business could become so powerful as to manipulate or control others. Preferably no one except perhaps apprentices would be working for another as an hourly slave-wager. It would be a distributist society, one where the land and resources are initially distributed evenly to each member.
Foresters might prefer the wooded land and utilize those resources; fishermen want access to a lake or river, farmers to open grazing land, and so on. None could take over another’s property, land, or resources, and no one could “buy out” another. They would all be responsible for their lands and developing their own plots of land and could not obtain more; if the land is abandoned, a new owner applies for it, or perhaps, it could be shared land so long as every individual in the entire realm approved its new purpose.
Everyone would have the resources available to provide for themselves and live completely self-sufficiently, not needing welfare or to make money from working for another. This does not exclude hiring tradespeople, bartering, and so forth, or some form of a money economy (no paper money or at least all money must be backed by something like gold), but generally everyone can provide for themselves. Being completely self-sufficient is available to all, unhindered by taxes or regulations. A natural aristocracy would develop and some would become “better off” due to hard work, intelligence differences, chance etc., but it would be more of a cultural and religious aristocracy.
In my society, there would be no government-controlled welfare; people would be free to work less and enjoy leisure, scraping by for a living, or work hard and garner more material things. But no coercive measures would force one to pay for another, thus causing division or dependence. If someone does fall into poverty or near-starvation, they receive no help from the government. However, churches, families, and neighbors can judge the situation and help if they choose to do so.
The hope is that charity would blossom, good deeds proliferate, and love and a sense of community flourish as people willingly helped their neighbors. Instead of anger, love would be cultivated. With people now freed from regulation and taxation, their money will not be filtered through the greedy hands of bureaucrats, politicians, and corporations. Thus, they could better afford charity for one another.
Capitalism, industrialization, socialism, and centralized government policies leave numerous poor in their wake. The decentralization of land ownership and production would limit their number to a greater extent. Further, the institution of highly moral, local community family influences would help govern the heart and mind, leading to far less criminal activity and far fewer poor to begin with.
