Citizen Controlled Democracy

On what basis can the democracy of an ideal society be controlled by its citizens? And how? This chapter provides an overview of the answers to these questions. We will discuss the need for axioms, the axioms themselves, and the most important consequences arising out of the acceptance of these axioms. These consequences are in the areas of law-making, government, determining the will of the people, and policy parameters. The axioms are the basis, and the consequences are the tools of a "Citizen Controlled Democracy".

The Need for Axioms

Citizens will have sufficient control over their society if ...

They can make, change and discard laws.
They can initiate ... creation of new systems, change of existing systems, and discarding of unwanted systems.
They can control the systems that they desire to control.

But before citizens can do any of those things, we will need to answer, "By what authority can citizens do any of the above three categories of things?" In other words, What is the basis for a "citizen controlled democracy"?

In order for citizens to have any control over their own society, the citizens need to have some beliefs about what a society is really all about, and the amount of control they have over their own society. More than just having these beliefs, they need to overwhelmingly agree with those beliefs.

For example, in a dictatorial society, if the citizens believe that the dictator has intrinsic and ultimate authority to set the rules of the society, then they have to live with the consequences of such a belief, and the main consequence of such a belief is that they would merely wish for a benevolent dictator. Citizens of such a society would believe in "might is right" and hence see nothing objectionable in dictatorship; they may even think that a dictatorship is "natural". Such a belief system cannot lead to an ideal society.

We have used the word "belief", because such kinds of ideas are not provable. When such beliefs are well entrenched in the population, citizens tend to assume that everyone knows them. At that point they become assumptions.

Can citizens discuss their society and decide about it on something stronger than just beliefs and assumptions? Yes. The word is "Axioms". The word axiom means self-evident truth. The word "axiom" conveys that it is a fundamental truth; it is not merely a belief or an assumption.

Axioms are undisputed self-evident truths about the purpose and nature of a society. Every kind of society is based on some axioms. Axioms exist, regardless of whether the society has publicly acknowledged such axioms or not. They are ultimately used to justify whatever happens in the society, or stop it from happening.

Axioms guide the citizens in choosing their goals and the methods of achieving these goals. Axioms give legitimacy for the decisions and actions chosen by the citizens and the society.

Only some kinds of axioms lead to a democracy. Only some kinds of axioms lead to a citizen controlled democracy. Only some kinds of axioms lead to a Utopian society.

The Axioms

Here are the axioms

Society is for the benefit of all humans.
A human cannot be owned.
A human is an equal owner of the society that he or she is a citizen of.

When each of the above statements, individually and independently, are self-evident truths to a majority of citizens of a society, then that society is ready for being an ideal society. Starting from that point in time, that society can start taking productive steps to get closer to a Utopia.

The first axiom could be thought of as setting a goal, a motto, a collective desire. The motto "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could be thought of as similar to the first axiom. It indicates the desired outcome; it is a goal to be achieved by the society. Similarly, the motto "liberty, equality, fraternity" indicates a desired outcome; it is the desired state of society. Similarly, "healthy, wealthy and wise" is indicating a desired state of being. For an ideal society, the first axiom will seem obvious, and that is the point of an axiom.

When we think about the idea of "society is for the benefit of all humans", we start understanding the true scope of all the things that we should do. We start realizing that the benefit we seek is not just for ourselves; it is also for our fellow citizens, our children, our grandchildren, and our future generations. We start realizing that cleanliness at home and garbage outside does not benefit us; we start seeing the problem with pollution, garbage dumps, groundwater pollution, greenhouse gases, melting glaciers, environment damage, and our contribution to climate change. We start realizing that a planet full of just humans, agriculture farms, poultry farms, livestock barns, and not much wildlife is not to our benefit. We start realizing the importance of other species, we start valuing them too; we start caring about bees, monarch butterflies, polar bears, native species, wildlife habitat, etc.

The idea of "benefit" is simple to understand and act upon. When we want it and when we are willing to take the effort that is needed to get what we want, we will be willing to give up those things that are not so beneficial for us. We will start making tradeoffs that collectively are beneficial for all humans.

Pursuing this simple desire of "benefit" leads to higher level desires like "well-being" and "good life". If we aim high enough, we will benefit not just our society and our country, but the entire humanity.

The simple desire of "benefit of all humans" leads to setting goals to achieve the desire. Setting goals and doing something to achieve goals are like two sides of the same coin. The first axiom could also be thought of as a "test" to check whether a proposed action is good enough to be implemented. Does it benefit all? Is it neutral? Does it harm many? Does it harm a few? What applies to actions also applies to inaction. Does refraining from changing something benefit all? Or does it continue to harm many and benefit only a few?

The second axiom is specifying the citizen's strong bias against something. It could be thought of as specifying the kinds of ideas, concepts, systems, and actions that will not be used in achieving the goals.

For a long time, we humans had awareness of this axiom. We observed people behaving in a way that was contrary to this axiom. There was slavery. Those were the times when our society could not be called a Utopia. It was only several decades ago that we finally recognized that this indeed is an axiom, and hence we abolished slavery. We emphatically stated, "a human cannot be owned".

We did not just say "no human can own another human", but we said that "a human cannot be owned". This is the reason why we don't sell our own blood; we donate it. Similarly, we do not allow humans to sell their organs even after they die. Humans have to express their wish to donate them after their death. The donation is also unconditional; there is no quid-pro-quo.

If we interpret the second axiom literally, we may restrict it to just the body of the person. But, what about the mind? What about their choices, opinions and decisions? What about the clothes on the body of that person? What about all their clothes in their closet? What about their personal photos and video recordings? What about the pictures they created in their school years? What about the paintings they created when they were older? What about the future work done by the individual? Are all these also part of the idea of "cannot be owned"? Where exactly is the line between "cannot be owned" and "can have a claim over"?

The third axiom also has been with us for a long time. It is in our genes. It is in our culture. We have seen this axiom being stated in the past. Then, somehow, we forgot about it.

This axiom is about the idea of ownership. It is about what we own. Ownership is not an intellectual idea, but a genetic one. Many animals demonstrate the concept of ownership. It is just like love, likes and dislikes.

The idea of ownership pervades our culture. We like to own things. We like to express our individuality with the things that we own. Furthermore, we like to use the things that we own to make our lives better. Some cultures have attempted to suppress this idea of individual ownership, and such attempts work for some time, but because the idea is in our genes, it cannot be suppressed forever.

Our society has evolved sufficiently to realize that a human is an equal owner of the society that he or she is a citizen of. This is a self-evident truth. It is an axiom. There is no need to prove it. It cannot be proven, but its truth can be felt. In a Utopia, if citizens are not the owners of their society and their country, then who is? In Utopia, there is no one else; citizens are the ultimate owners of everything.

We, the citizens, are the owners of our society, our country. We own all its resources and its problems. Ownership gives us the authority that we need to deal with what goes on in our society and our country. We are in charge of using our resources wisely and solving all our problems well.

The third axiom could be thought of as specifying the basis on which all actions are taken.

The third axiom could be thought of as granting all citizens their fundamental right - the shared ownership of the entire society. Every right, and every privilege that can be thought of, is a consequence of citizens exercising the fundamental right associated with the shared ownership of their society. Shared ownership gives the citizens the authority to grant themselves those rights and privileges.

The primary consequence of the third axiom occurs when the entire society decides to allow "private ownership". If a society chooses, it could grant its citizens the right to own and possess private property, and it could also satisfy the expectation that society will protect the private property. Even after allowing private ownership, the society retains the right to revoke such private ownership. Even today, we see such kinds of revocations when a society forcefully buys some private property for some public good.

With shared ownership comes shared responsibility. Citizens are ultimately responsible for everything that is allowed or disallowed in society. So, when citizens disagree with what happens in their society, they share the blame, and they share the authority to rectify it as well.

Law-Makers and Law-Abiding Citizens

By Axiom 3, we consider ourselves the owners of our society and hence we have the ultimate authority to make the rules of the society. That is, we have the authority to make the laws for our society and our country. We are in charge of making all the rules of conduct for anyone who is in our country. Citizens are the lawmakers.

Whether the citizens delegate this fundamental law-making authority to their representatives is entirely up to the citizens of the society. If the authority was delegated at some point in time, it can be reduced or revoked as well. Delegating the authority does not eliminate the authority. Ultimately, the citizens are responsible for the laws in their society.

By Axiom 1, we are interested in the well-being of all citizens, and hence we have the responsibility to ensure that those laws add to the well-being of all citizens. We are the owners of our laws. When we create bad laws, we suffer its consequences. When we create good laws, we reap their benefits.

We make laws because we are also agreeing to follow them. That is, we are agreeing to be law-abiding citizens. When an individual agrees to be a law-abiding citizen, then that individual would have similar expectations from every other individual. Thus, collectively, a society expects all its citizens to be law-abiding.

When we desire that all citizens should be law-abiding, then we must make every attempt to ensure that we create well-written laws whose total extent is only so much that every citizen can know it and understand it.

Our current laws are so vast that they are well beyond the scope of human capabilities to know them, remember them and follow them. When we take our responsibility of making the laws seriously, we will make laws that everyone can know, understand and follow. It is only then that the idea of "law-abiding Citizens" can become a reality.

How should we implement the idea that "citizens are law-makers"? There are many more related questions. The answers to these sorts of questions are complex, and will be discussed in the "UD Book". This book focuses on discussing the "Fair Monetary System" and "Social Welfare System" of an ideal Society. For that kind of discussion, all we need to know is that citizens are truly in charge, and hence have the ultimate power. That power includes the power to make the laws of society.

Government and Common Good

By Axiom 3, citizens are the owners of their society. Hence, it is their business to take care of the society. It is their responsibility. Citizens can voluntarily do many things for their society. But that is not enough as there is always plenty to take care of, and all that requires planning, coordination and management. Hence, citizens form an organization, called the government, and ask this organization to take care of things that they would like taken care of. When this organization does things that citizens ask it to do, it is providing services to all citizens. That is, citizens create an organization, called the government, to do the things that need to be done for the society.

What kind of things should citizens ask their government to do? The things that the government does should benefit all citizens. These things should be for the common good. What is the "common good"? An activity is considered as an activity for the common good if the majority of citizens think so. It is that simple.

Thus, the government of a society should do those things that are considered as common good by the citizens of that society.

Government is an organization that is created by the citizens, with the intention of providing some chosen services to all citizens. The services provided are for the common good of all. Unlike other organizations, citizens are not customers of this organization called the government; they are the owners.

The government renders these chosen services without the motive for profit. The primary motive is the benefit of all. The primary motive is the common good. Hence, the government is a not-for-profit organization.

The government being an organization, it does its work by employing people. Most of these employees are selected for employment using some normal employee selection process. Some of these employees are elected for some position, through elections in which all citizens cast their vote, but they are still employees. All the people working for this organization, the government, are employees of the citizens of the society. They get paid to do the work that the citizens ask them to do. Thus, as owners, the citizens are, indirectly, the employers of all employees working for the government.

How do citizens elect the elected employees? Is it similar to our current societies, or is it different? There are many more related questions. The answers to these sorts of questions are complex, and will be discussed in the "UD Book". This book focuses on discussing the "Fair Monetary System" and "Social Welfare System" of an ideal society. For that kind of discussion, all we need to know is that citizens are truly in charge, and hence have the ultimate power. That power includes the power to elect someone to do something specific.

When a citizen uses some service provided by the government, it is useful to keep in mind that the citizen is not a customer, but an owner of the government. There are consequences of this fundamental relationship between a citizen and the government of the citizen's society.

The major consequence of this relationship is that the government should not charge for the services it renders to its citizens. Why? If we, that is all the citizens, are not willing to pay for the service, but would rather have the specific citizens who avail such services pay for the services, then these services are better provided by non-government entities like individuals or publicly owned corporations or privately owned corporations. If we are unwilling to pay for the service, then that unwillingness is a strong indication that the service is not for the common good. Thus, the government should provide services free of charge. Thus, if we are not willing to let our government provide the service free of charge, then we should not ask our government to provide the service at all.

We may need to charge a small per use fee when an individual avails some service that is provided by the government to ensure that the seeker of the service is not utilizing this service wastefully. Having to pay a small fee, every time a citizen avails a service, should act as a deterrent to wastage. Moreover, the per use fee should not be the norm for all services. The per use fee should only be charged for those services where we have strong evidence that there is wastage.

When the government provides its services free of charge, who bears the cost? The cost of operating a not-for-profit organization is shared by all its owners. Citizens collect money from all citizens to fund the operation of the government in fulfilling its responsibilities towards all citizens. This money is commonly called a "tax". Thus, tax is the service charge for the smooth functioning of society.

How should we collect taxes? This question is discussed in the chapter "Wealth Based Taxes".

Sometimes, the taxes are insufficient to do all the things that the government is supposed to do. That is, there is a deficit of funds to do all the activities that have been planned and all the unanticipated activities that have sprung up. This aspect is discussed in the chapter "Fiscal Policy"

Will Of The People

When governments are supposed to do things that are for the common good, then the following questions arise:

How do citizens tell their governments to do new things for the common good?
How do citizens tell their governments to stop doing some activity for any reason, including the reason that "it is not for the common good"?
How do citizens tell their governments to change some major aspect of one of their common good activities?
How do citizens tell their governments to change some minor aspect of one of their common good activities?

The short answer to all these questions is as follows: citizens can instruct their government to do whatever they want accomplished using a mechanism similar to what is currently known as a referendum. The word "directive" better encapsulates the intent of such a mechanism. A directive is an order given by the citizens to their government to do something.

Those directives, of course, have to be written down, read, discussed, and put to vote. Citizens will routinely vote on proposed directives; some of these proposals will get accepted by the citizens, and then they become directives.

Thus, citizens can give directives to their government regarding anything that they want accomplished.

In the preceding paragraphs, we have established the word "directive" to denote the concept, and we have mentioned that directives are given using a mechanism similar to the currently existing mechanism of referendums. This is all we need in this book to discuss various systems that will need to be part of a Utopian society. The assurance that such systems can be implemented comes from the notion that we can give directives to our government.

Regarding the question: "How do citizens tell their governments to change some minor aspect of one of their common good activities?", for most such minor changes, the answer is in the next section.

All other conceptual and implementation details regarding how directives are proposed, voted on, eventually become directives, and related topics will be discussed in the "UD Book". This book focuses on discussing the "Fair Monetary System" and "Social Welfare System" of an ideal society. For that kind of discussion, all we need to know is that citizens are truly in charge, and hence have the ultimate power. That power includes the power to direct one's government to bring new systems into being and discard older, unwanted systems.

Policy Parameters

As a consequence of Axioms, citizens can make the laws and give directives to their government. Making laws and giving directives to their government are the first two kinds of controls that citizens have over their society.

Using these two powers, citizens direct their government to design laws, policies, and systems that can be controlled by citizens; directly and explicitly, if they want to. This is the third kind of control. The control over these systems is by means of "Policy Parameters". Policy parameters are the control knobs on the laws, policies, and systems being controlled.

To illustrate the idea of a policy parameter, and its use in ideal societies, let us consider the voting system and the associated law that stipulates the minimum voting age. The minimum voting age is a number that represents the age of a person, in years, after which the person is allowed to vote and thereby express their binding opinion on the decisions of the society. The vote could be for electing representatives, or it could be to decide how soon to pay off a fiscal deficit, or some such thing.

Different people could have different opinions about what the minimum voting age should be. To decide this minimum voting age, and in order for the opinion of all people to be considered and counted, the society creates a "Policy Parameter" called the "Minimum Voting Age". Citizens have the ability to specify what they think this number should be, and they can specify it if they think they know the "right answer". This is done using an "app". For those people who don't want to decide on policy matters, they simply indicate that their choice is the same as the choice of their elected representative. In fact, this is the default, and citizens, when they wish to, have to switch this choice to something like "I will specify" instead of "Delegated to Elected Representative".

So, every day, each citizen expresses, directly or indirectly through their representative, the number (in years) that should be the minimum voting age. An average of all these numbers becomes the actual minimum voting age.

Every time representatives get elected, the values of all policy parameters, as chosen by each citizen, get set to the same value as the elected representative of that citizen. After that, the citizen can choose to set the policy parameter to any value that they desire, or just leave the value unchanged. This resetting of the policy parameter to the value chosen by the representative enables a "periodic rethink" about what those values should be. It ensures that nothing is "cast in stone", and at the same time it gives citizens the ability to change their opinion and decision about how things should be in their society.

Citizens always have opinions about social decisions. Policy parameters enable citizens to make their opinion contribute to the collective decisions of the society.

There are many other details associated with the concept and implementation of policy parameters, and they are specified in the "UD Book". In this book, all we need is the knowledge that we can have systems that have parameters, and that citizens can change the values of those parameters as their opinion changes, and that change of opinion will be considered in the working of the system.

From Democracy to Utopia

The gist of the previous four sections is as follows:

Citizens are the law-makers, and hence interested in being law-abiding citizens.
The government of a society is owned by the society, and hence its citizens.
The government is tasked to do the things that are for the common good of the society, and nothing else.
Citizens are not the customers of the government; citizens are the owners of the government.
Employees of the government are, indirectly, employees of the citizens.
There exists a mechanism for citizens to give directives to their government.
Laws, policies and systems can be controlled by citizens by allowing citizens to change their parameters.

Most democratic societies in current times are representative democracies. If we consider each of the above-mentioned key points, we will conclude that representative democracies are a "non-direct and non-strict" implementation of those key points.

In representative democracies, the act of "issuing directives" is loosely implemented by the election of representatives. Electing representatives is the "mechanism" that can be used to create direct mechanisms for citizens to exert control and give directives. Electing members of one party instead of other parties is the "mechanism" that can be used for the creation of fair monetary systems and social welfare systems fit for an ideal society.

An ideal society, when compared to a representative democracy, has much better tools for citizens to initiate change.

A representative democracy is a fantastic starting point for achieving a Utopia. In the chapter "Utopian Goals", we mentioned that a democracy is critical to achieving Utopia. Without a democracy, there is little hope for citizens to accomplish any social change. As long as a society is a democracy, its citizens can initiate change; citizens can initiate the creation of social systems that they can control.

Democratic societies can become a "Citizen Controlled Democracy", and from there they can become an ideal society, a Utopia.