The Right to Be Free from Debt and Taxation

Once I felt we could reform the tax system to make it fair, to make it work.  Yes, I said to the hangman, would you mind putting a bit of padding on the noose?  Just there where it rubs my neck. And I'd really prefer the rope to be a nice stretchy bungee cord if you please..

This elephant was not so lucky.  They train them as babies with chains around the legs to prevent escaping.  Funny thing is, when the elephant is fully grown, it respects the chains.  However, it could easily break them!  This is called learned helplessness, and it must begin at an early age to be effective.  The baby is powerless -- the adult is not -- the adult remembers powerlessness and perpetuates it unknowingly.  Unwillingly we might say.  Permission was not given to hobble us.

Death and taxes we are taught may not be avoided.

We can't all be rogue elephants running amok can we?  Yet there's a place in nature for instinct -- it is only when this is inhibited that a creature becomes docile and dependent on its handlers.  We are that elephant.  (And some of us are the grown-up versions of it.)

There was an exercise that I tried (a thought experiment if you like).  Remember John Nash, the protagonist of A Beautiful Mind?  He has used [invented] game theory to explain people's economic behaviour and explain why a phenomenon such as cooperation might be economically viable.

If people can make the calculation for themselves, it goes like this.  By doing my part to work with a team (a group, a co-op, a state, a village or a country) everyone can benefit equally -- including me!

If I act selfishly or against the natural limits (rules) of the situation (game), I will lose, and others will not benefit as fully either.

(See the oft-cited prisoners' dilemma, and the tragedy of the commons, examples of sharing and cooperation that require us to transcend the prospect of immediate benefit to ourselves alone..)

  Here's my work of many years ago, after studying Biology,  
  where grids like this are used to explain species-species interactions.  
     (In which +/- is parasitism, +/+ is symbiosis for example.)  

  This would be an analysis of human ecology.  
  Where individual actions are weighed alongside their impact on society.  
  At the time I was thinking of how the tax system could be improved.   

  There are terms such as grant and reverse grant to describe  
  whether society gives something  
  to the person as a result of what they do,  
 or the person is required to give something of theirs back.  

  The grids with zero have special notes (*) on the reasoning there.  

Elements of a Just Society

Game theory grid	+ TO SELF	- TO SELF	0 TO SELF
+ TO SOCIETY	I	II	III *
- TO SOCIETY	IV	V	VI *
0 TO SOCIETY	VII *	VII *	IX *

Key:

1. Self - Individual does or gives

2. Society Gets

3. Society Gives

4. Individual receives

A. TYPE OF TRANSACTION

B. TYPE OF GRANT OR REVERSE GRANT

---------------------------------------------

I.  PLUS TO SELF, PLUS TO OTHERS

1. Runs ethical business

2. Services provided

3. Bonus paid

4. Profit

A. WIN-WIN

B. BONUS

II.   MINUS TO SELF, PLUS TO OTHERS

1. Enforced contribution to public works

2. Enrichment

3. Entitlement

4. Living Expenses

A. DRAFT

B. ALLOWANCE

III.  "NOUGHT" TO SELF, PLUS TO OTHERS

 ( * VOLUNTEER- NOTE:  Benefit and cost to individual are roughly equal)

1. Voluntary Work

2. Necessary Services

3. Approval to work

4. Satisfaction Experienced

A. VOLUNTARY WORK

B. WORK EXPERIENCE

IV.   PLUS TO SELF, MINUS TO OTHER

1. User Fees at Market Value

2. Revenue [Compensation]

3. Public Resource Access

4. Public Resources

A. RESOURCE USE

B. RENTAL FEES

V.   MINUS TO SELF, MINUS TO OTHERS

1. Environmentally/ Socially Undesirable Act

2. Fines Paid

3. Help ("Coaching" preferably)

4. Institutionalization

A. CRIME

B. TIME / FINE

VI. "NOUGHT" TO SELF, MINUS TO SOCIETY

(* SERVICES- NOTE:  Benefits every one equally, no unique benefit to ONE individual )

1. Pays citizenship dues

2. Public Monies

3. Provides Basic Service at Social Level

4. Services, Infrastructure

A. PUBLIC SERVICES

B. DUES

VII.  PLUS TO SELF, "NOUGHT" TO SOCIETY

(* LUXURY- NOTE:   Benefits one individual over another with no net effect on society)

1. Pays Privilege Tax

2. Levies Paid

3. Right to Privilege

4. Luxury

A. PRIVILEGE

B. LUXURY TAX

VIII.   MINUS TO SELF, "NOUGHT" TO SOCIETY

(* DONATION- NOTE: Not strictly needed by society, given, nonetheless)

1. Special donations

2. Extra goods and/or services

3. Recognition

4. Merit Award

A. DONATION

B. MERIT

IX.   "NOUGHT" TO SELF, "NOUGHT" TO SOCIETY

 (* RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS- NOTE:  Benefit and cost cancel out from one individual to another

Neutral effect on society- financially speaking! )

1. One individual helps another individual

2. No net material benefit

3. May not know of above transaction

4. Good Karma

A. RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS

B. BLESSING

............................................................

What I am saying is the economy revolves not just around everyone having money, but on people being willing to get out of bed in the morning to do things that will (ultimately) benefit others. (Look what happens when there is a general strike [rubbish piles up]).

How does this have any bearing on debt and taxation? Our game [in the world today] involves taking on debt to lift ourselves up by our boot-straps. We have not what we need, some one else does. They give it conditionally.

What is missing is freedom.  Our freedom to manifest that which we need or desire, free from encumbrance.  We [used to] submit to a form of punishment (debt burden) when we [strove] to uplift ourselves materially.

Yet the source of everything is equally available to all -- every material object we own [or ever may] traces its origin to the earth.  {Ultimately -- the earth belongs to all.}

And the energy -- life force -- which allows us to get out of bed to work, to play, to manifest flows through each of us, or we would not be alive.

The games which differentially advantage some over others (who's on top of the pyramid economically?) are of our own making.  This is the way it is, we teach the baby elephant; and the human adult remembers.

Taxation, too, is a disincentive.  A penalty.  (In the grid above, when padding the noose, I only described a Luxury Tax - like in Monopoly! - see VII.  The other disincentives were IV, a user-pays fee for public resources, and V a fine for socially/environmentally unacceptable actions.  VI was a levy for public works..)

Things that are taxed become limited, as to do more of them incurs a cost (unless you've made a loophole for it -- game!).  So why tax our productivity -- our income?  Does this not send the message that it should be curtailed -- you work more, you earn more, so you pay more.

I believe the income tax really does limit some people in this way.  Too bad.  Work and productive behaviour could/should/would be a joy if left untaxed and unsullied by onerous obligation and economic necessity.

Here I am saying that to be truly free, everything we do must be voluntary!  There never was or will be a tax on what we do from the goodness of our own hearts.  Often this has been stated as "The best things in life are free."  And they are.  Tax is not one of those things.  (Nor is debt.)

Imagine an economy like this.  What if no one was paid to collect rubbish.  Quickly people would see what must be done.  Some might even say, "I don't think we should have rubbish."  Or, "I can't really afford to have rubbish in my life."  Problemo solved. 

Other necessary functions would engender empowerment -- as I've discussed in previous posts [local self determination and a house of your own].  Now we start to see how it all fits together.

........................................

A further consideration in relation to taxes (the elephant in the lounge room?) -- they violate the principle of individual sovereignty [I am sovereign, I am free, I am sovereign of me.].  (Quote from Cameron Day)

It really is medieval (in the gruesome, violent, oppressive sense of the word) to extract involuntary tribute from any one.  Armies have done this to cities.  Nobles have done this to peasants.  And Kings and Emperors have done this to so-called nobles.  We still  do it -- with our tax systems, with Third World debt.

What is given should only be given freely -- that's my motto.  Giving things feels so good!  I prefer that some one who receives from me does not feel beholden in any way.  I would not wish them to feel indebted or to owe me anything.  Because if I did not want them to have that thing, I would not freely have given it.

Wealth loves company.

More on economics.  We have a commonly held belief that to be prosperous one must accumulate vast amounts of resources -- stuff, money, or even livestock or stores of food.  But what if wealth came to be measured in a different way.

One is wealthy in proportion to what one is able to circulate to others (as above, different types of resources).  That is, how much can one give to other people -- 

not how much can one get for one's self.

I leave you with this thought.

~

Ancient Egypt -- An Exercise in Compliance

 The old world order.

What brings people together?  Is it science, is it religion or is it imagery.  If you are good at creating images in the minds of others you have what it takes to create mass consciousness.

Religious leaders just as some politicos [and advertising executives!] have succeeded in doing this over the eons.  But how does it work?

Think of it this way.  Two equal minds (in their basic make-up) act just as two equal materials, but one manages to shape the other.  Easter Islanders used small stone picks to shape masses of basalt into gargantuan statues.  The trick was the pick moves faster than the parent stone -- it has more energy behind it!

I believe that by accelerating one's thoughts and projecting them outwards onto a massive structure (the consciousness of all, or to certain target groups if you like) an impression may be formed, an image, on the minds of others.  There is skill required, and practice but it may be learned.  The other thing to consider is why it is being done.  Is it for control, or is it for empowerment, with appropriate respect for the sacredness of free will?

I give you this example.  How do you motivate people to do a large project -- whether it may be building a pyramid or going to war?

There must be some image given as a focus (the pointy top of the pyramid!) or why would any one bother.  Sometimes the image is based in fear and negativity (just watch the news -- or better yet, don't).  Images of your country folk's property, people or lands being destroyed, taken or otherwise disrespected (even symbolically -- like burning a flag) can be sufficient to arouse ire to go to war.

Religious iconography is a masterful example of impressing others with tall buildings, beautiful (and/or sad) works of art, high decorated ceilings and imposing monoliths.

Each of us is just as worthy of respect and admiration.

Even if we have not been crucified!

Wasn't that what he was trying to tell us..

But we need to look at why any one would want any one else to be moved by these things.  Do they uplift, or  do they cause the opposite, cowering, huddling servitude and mindless obedience?

Here's another image for you.  If I told you your period of compulsory servitude (i.e. slavery) was over -- and you were now free -- to work for me (doing the same thing -- pyramid building for example) for gold coins, I wonder if you would work just as hard as before.  Harder, more likely.  I wouldn't have to feed or shelter you either, because you were now free to buy whatever you needed/wanted.

Good deal for some one -- but is it you?  Pyramids get built faster.  Slaves who are freed in this way cannot actually revolt.  (Until the strike is invented.. much later.)

So an image does in fact have the power to enslave -- albeit in a deceptive fashion, as it appears to be the very offer of freedom.  The harder you work, the more gold coins you will get, and then you can do whatever you like!

Lotteries are clever this way too.  A pot of gold awaits at the end of the rainbow, and by forfeiting some of your coinage you have a chance to get it.  The image of a large pile of gold coins can even make you part with a few actual gold coins in your hand!

The two main motivating forces in humanity today seem to be love and money.  However, imagery can re-direct the first toward the second (love of money).  And thus we have a major mistake in the creation of imagery that can lead us astray for generations (past, present and future) if we allow it to.

Other mistakes that may occur in image creation lie in the direction of man's perception of the divine.  On the one hand we like to analyse, to take living things that work, break them apart and kill them to get dead things that don't work, so we can find out what does make them work.  We identify their pieces and their pedigree (their provenance, where they come from).  [Such as shooting flocks of birds like Audubon did to help identify new species hitherto unknown to us.]

Here's what makes them work -- life!

So we have been told we were created in god's image.  Then we turn around and create gods in our own image (human forms with gender).  But what if we misunderstood what image meant?  What if it referred to our spiritual essence (something we might share with our creative source) and not to our physical bodies.  (So our creative source is not actually incarnate, as are we.)  Here is a colossal mistake that can and has been made.

Whose god are you?

Some cultures have gone to great lengths to prevent this mistake -- such as the desert religions.  Judaism prohibits the worship of graven images.  Islam had rules about copying the human form in art, that's why mosaics have been used extensively in their secular and sacred decorations.  It is ok to know the mind of god through mathematics (wonderful geometric creations) but not through the depiction of our own bodies.

However, that may be too far in the other direction.  I don't see how it is disrespectful to god to own our own creative abilities -- if after all -- we are of the same stuff as god then can we not too create?  As long as we are conscious of the fact that god is not subject to physical constraints of form as are we.  And that it makes more sense to treasure the god within, than some created -- 3D -- imagery that supposedly represents a god that is more worthy of respect than are we as individuals.

So keep creating -- but do it with awareness!  I've become aware by doing these posts -- with embedded images -- of the power of pictures to affect emotions.  And I know I need to be careful that what I present (and re-present) reflects the truth of the situation I am describing.  It is possible to be seduced by an image and to choose it because you like it, even though it's not exactly correct.

Example -- Right to Local Self Determination post.  I've left a few clues (and I'm telling you now).  The image of the mountain range on the border of Mexico that's dry neighbouring a green irrigated field.  Well the range runs North-South (seen in aerial map nearby in the post) so it is not the border.  But does it not arouse feelings of indignation at the injustice and arrogance of power that can create haves and have-nots in such a graphic fashion?  [I've attached the website and often the source filename to the filename of photos I've used, so if you copy the images you will see where they come from.]

I am not immune from the occasional misuse of an image.  There may be other examples..  So I encourage you to look within yourself when confronted by an image of any type that moves or inspires you (in any direction) (whether you consider it positive or negative).

In closing, we can see countless examples of how images have brought people together.  Whether it be political (parties are a great example of what I am talking about) religious ('nuff said) or economic aspirations (ditto).  But I ask is there not a difference between unity and uniformity?  Soldiers wear uniforms, some employees do too.  To me unity is about cooperativity, solidarity and mutual moral (and practical) support.  Uniformity speaks to me of conformity and mindless adherence to established norms -- that some one may have originally created as an image to serve their own ends.

We must examine the soup of images we find ourselves immersed in today.  To take our rightful places as truly creative human beings (gods with arms -- and legs) we must master the skilful, conscious and empowering creation of the image.  Why not uplift one another for a change?

The Right to Local Self Determination

This is possibly the biggest post I have put forward.  I can feel the weight of it upon me before I even start.  Here are some things to share with you on this ponderous subject and you will be able to see for yourself how it fits with your world view and aspirations.

Local authorities bless them, have their hands full interfering with our daily business and living arrangements/amenities.  And by all indication, they are not up to the job from the point of view of respecting the people or the environment involved.  Now that I have pointed one finger of my hand, I can see (at least) three others pointing backwards toward me, so let's get started.

Why do we have centralised authorities?  Something to do with economies of scale, safety in numbers and quantity of human life versus quality methinks.  We pay protection money to our authorities so that any potential invaders, real or imagined will be deterred by the unified might of our protectors.  But haven't I just advocated for unity in my last post.  I have.  I suppose I would not mind being protected if I actually felt safe from the very beings who were supposedly looking after my/our interests.  (Hence the need for this post.)

Lewis Mumford's books (the two of which I will hold up as stone tablets in suitably dramatic fashion) have provided some clue.

On the origin of the city in western-modern civilisation.  I would not venture to guess how many times civilisation has emerged and re-emerged and in how many places it has done so.

Walled cities in Europe at any rate were largely a reaction to Norse invaders with a penchant for taking what they could find in milder climes and from those who they may have seen as milder natured.





Interesting that the first Viking attack, Lindisfarne, Scotland (793 AD) was on a Christian target -- a monastery.

But what happened before that was -- hmm.  The encroachment of Christian armies into Scandinavian (then pagan) territories.  Who were well known for causing spontaneous conversions through the judicious use of sword and fire [irony intended].

So Christianity engendered the city as we know it in the west -- a sort of fortress to keep wealth in and robbers out.

My view of security is that it stems from those inside and outside (and ultimately no separation will be needed) having the same right to property (land) and the same access to the means of fulfilling their basic needs.  So instead of spending resources on defending our things from them, we could/should/would like to be able to ensure that there is no one to defend against -- because they are equally advantaged to us.  A big ask.  Or is it?

(It has been said that it would cost 10% of the global military budget to end world poverty.)

The root cause of conflict if we examine it I believe to be nothing more than squabbling over resources.. for if all have what they need would there be any fighting?  

We do have examples of supposed ideological conflicts -- but can these not be linked to deeper motives such as it is over land and what's under it..

Now that I have got that off my chest, let's zoom in a bit closer -- I did say local after all.

I think we'll start with water rights.  This has appeared to be a limiting factor for human settlements throughout the ages and has determined who can grow food and who struggles to do so.

Fukuoka has said, a community that cannot feed itself will not be around for very long.

Zoom up a bit -- we can see that US/Mexico border from space.

¿Por qué sólo la lluvia en su lado de la frontera?

It's not about rainfall or even best-practice land management dear friends.  [see healthy planet post]  It's about the Colorado River.  Not much left of it by the time it reaches the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez).

Since I have mentioned local self determination, let's look at what it may look like if the Colorado River were self managed in mosaic fashion by local farmers along the catchment instead of numerous central authorities (mostly on the USA side of course).

Latest news from Baja, an historic release of water from the Morelos dam at the border is giving new life to the parched delta where the river finishes its course.  The mighty river has waited 50 years to reach the salty ocean, and wildlife may begin to return to the fragile estuary.  Possibly signalling a paradigm shift in water management in the region.

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-river-begins-flooding-mexican-delta-061452323.html

What we need are basic golden ground rules - on the water most importantly.  If one community manages the water upstream to any other ones it has prime responsibility to ensure those downstream are not harmed or disadvantaged.

This is probably one of the biggest obstacles to local hegemony over resources -- because a larger authority steps in to make sure the little guys are doing it right.  But the larger authority stopped at the border and forgot to include its other neighbours.

That's why I'm advocating it must be a case of people looking after the rights of other people (here at the very local level) not governments looking after the rights of their people and screwing the other ones.

The border should be meaningless in this case.  Mexican farmers (and fishers -- the water is needed to ensure healthy fish stocks) need water just as much as American ones.  Farmers could probably come to an understanding amongst themselves where governments cannot.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another thing that we can all see in our built environment is the power distribution infrastructure.  One physical argument in favour of local power generation (say on the scale of ten households, or part of your average street as they show in the Thrive movie) -- is that 10% of the power generated (by coal, nukes or hydro or gas) is lost in radiation from the wires.

Not only is this inefficient but unhealthy -- affecting the well-being of people who live near the lines (most would not want to if they could afford to go elsewhere) in terms of cancer risk.  And also affecting wild-life migration patterns because animals can see the ultra-violet light the radiation produces and it spooks them.  We do not have the right to do this to one another or to other beings.

The other issue with power generation is it completely disenfranchises those at the local level (including our local governments -- or councils).  Whether it is CSG alias CBG, CMM, CBM, fracking, or hydro-fracking to extract gas for heating or cooking [that may be exported to other countries],  mining of coal to produce power (requiring dynamiting in open pit mines), a nuclear station or just an average fossil fuel power station -- local residents cannot have the quality of life they would like.

 Info site on CSG.

In some cases, local people are actively opposed to the imposition of mining but higher levels of government (state and federal) have proven unresponsive (to them) and all too eager to do business with multinational mining and energy concerns.  I would like to see local communities have the power to say no to these things [and they are -- look at Gippsland's declaration -- Mirboo North] and have it stick.

Demonstration in Illawarra region south of Sydney.

What is needed is a universal recognition of local people's hegemony over land and resources that cannot be usurped by global/national/state or even their very own electees!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Moving on.. in Peru I saw a disturbing sight.  Or off Peru should I say.  Lima's well-known surfing beach as also known for its toxic (brown foamy) tide of human effluent that didn't quite go as far away as we might like it to.

  As one guide book put it, the combined sewerage outflow of 8 million bodies has to go somewhere..

(Then we ask if 8 million bodies should be living so close together..)  Lewis Mumford's

medieval cities did not become the filthy cesspits we commonly imagine them as until they reached a certain threshold of over-crowding.

 

“Medieval Plantes / Crops,Life in the Medieval Garden”

Before that happened, there were orchards and backyard gardens inside the walls just as in the neighbouring countryside.

And the family loo, privy or pit toilet was adequate to the task of keeping the city (or town) clean.

Here is a very good reason for humans living with adequate space around us, as a native forest of one acre or so should be fine for a small family to do its business camping-style without using up precious drinkable water for flushing as we barbarically insist on today (see Humanure Handbook's opening statement..) [need to read book for it!].

So locally (in small settlements -- surrounded by open land -- of about 100 families on at least 3 acres each) this type of waste management (point-source) would be preferable to central collection, treatment and discharge stations.  Even better than septic systems because you would save a lot of fresh water, and easier than composting toilets you have to empty, but it should be a choice.

But the key is --don't we need the right from local/state/federal authorities to live this way -- managing our own waste at home?  How absurd.  Traditional societies (in China in this example) dug huge holes for composting waste -- then planted beneficial trees when full enough.

Fukuoka  refers to re-use of human waste along with animal manure in sustainable rice and grain farming, but very delicately does not go into detail.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

  Roads -- (still moving on).  Some one remarked where I used to live we had a highway built in 6 months by old-time convicts that is now being rebuilt and it's taken 4 years (and counting).                                         

So progress sometimes isn't (I'm glad that convicts aren't being exploited though.).  Whilst I marvel at the technological know-how of men and their machines that can cut through a rocky hillside, I know on a small scale how one vehicle, making one traverse of a field can leave quite a scar on the land.  So it is hard to reconcile my love of travel and movement with what the earth might prefer us to do (walk) (cycle) (gallop) (or fly!).

My experience of local councils is they are cash-poor and have a hard time keeping up with residents' requests for paving and improvements.  My sense is that locals know the lay of the land better than any one (including council professionals -- sorry guys!).  And these locals are the most aware and impacted by so-called improvements.

Here's an example.  I used to live at the top of the catchment that fed Sydney's main water supply (a dam).

 Again, look what was lost when central authorities dammed a beautiful valley that locals might then have preferred to keep.  

The dirt road we lived on used to send silt and other run-off into a sensitive bush (Australian native) area.  Council was too busy to help remediate, but did I have the right to step in autocratically and do what I felt was needed to stem the tide of dirty water Sydney-ward?  Land rights were a problem (I didn't own) and neighbouring properties were too close by to do the environment justice (let the water spread out in a flood plain) as Peter Andrews might recommend.

This site has some theory.

   http://permaculturenews.org/2012/10/12/floodplains-the-biggest-slow-release-water-source-around/

This one shows a case study.

http://earthintegral.com/2012/11/02/recommissioning-natures-flood-fertigation-infrastructure/

                                  

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

                        

Although I have just offered a list of functions (water, power, sewer, roads) that I believe could be done/provided more effectively by knowledgeable, empowered locals, our current system (the Australian one I am familiar with) pits neighbour against neighbour.  The council functions as a mediator between complaining residents (or the police do) and people seem to be frightened of dealing with one another directly.  This cannot go on.  My definition of sustainable is it embraces what sustains us, what gives us sustenance and what is nurturing.  It is essential for neighbours and neighbourhoods to be able to work together (as in sustainability streets or crop and swap -- two local neighbourhood initiatives) -- otherwise we will continue to be pawns in the game of centralised authority.

Just one of many sustainability streets.. Rose Bay, NSW (Australia)

Hulbert Street Fiesta, Fremantle, WA (Australia)

Swapping our Crops, Faulconbridge, NSW (Australia)

Here are some interesting urban examples of street re-design.

Seattle, WA (USA) and Vancouver, BC (Canada)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

For some other opinions on these matters -- you could look to the work of Elinor Ostrom who spent years researching a topic known as "Governing the Commons".  It seems there are so few examples (thus far) of local people effectively managing shared resources that by illuminating these beautiful case studies and broadcasting them to the world you can win a Nobel Prize (which she did in 2009 in economics).  She gives eight rules or guidelines which I will paste here, and give a link.

 8 Principles for Managing a Commons 

   1. Define clear group boundaries.   

   2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.   

   3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.   

   4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members  

are respected by outside authorities.   

   5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

   6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.   

   7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.   

   8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest    level up to the entire interconnected system.   

Also, in the Ringing Cedars -- my favourite source -- they refer to the History of Russia -- wherein the city of Kiev (in modern Ukraine) had a well-loved governing body -- called a veche.  That recruited its members equally from all sections of society and did a reasonable job of managing its affairs until civil war broke out in Kievan Rus and the Mongols moved in.  Later veches ceased to operate when the Moscow tsars took over.

 This veche in Pskov lasted until 1510.

Novgorod's went until 1478.

There are other examples of traditional people amalgamating their tribes in a successful, peaceful fashion and joining local interests into a larger regional body -- but that is a subject for another post!