Sounds complicated. Maybe it's simpler in practice. I think a major problem with our current system of governance is that there are too many laws trying to regulate all of human life, which is madness. We need to have less new law. We need to repeal most law. Most laws are not big statutes - they are Statutory Instruments (Regulations.) Perhaps a way forward for societies in an ideal world would be for many panocracies to exist within defined spheres. For example - building regulations. Should not the people making laws about 'building' know something about building things? Some random politician is going to know zip. Some civil servant - who is supposed to consult 'appropriate' bodies before drafting regulations will also be ignorant and have no accountability. Maybe we need a fractured system of rule-making? Those suggesting and arguing for new 'rules' should be part of a network of sufficiently qualified people and they have the ability to create new regulations for the sphere in which they have knowledge and/or qualifications. Moral or general questions - like your abortion example - could be open to general comment and a whole country referendum. Other questions, like drainage say, would be too technical for the average person. I would also advocate for a federal hierarchy of governance to create subsidiarity - so some issues dealt with at parish level totally, some at district level, some at county level and very little at national level - safety standards, international trade and defence only perhaps.
Many thanks for the comprehensive and thought-provoking comment. I'll try to answer each section of it separately.
Q: "Sounds complicated. Maybe it's simpler in practice."
A: Like most things, it's complicated when you open the box. The devil is always in the detail. Only a pilot project that people can try for themselves will show whether they can get on board with it.
Q: "I think a major problem with our current system of governance is that there are too many laws trying to regulate all of human life, which is madness. We need to have less new law. We need to repeal most law. Most laws are not big statutes - they are Statutory Instruments (Regulations.)"
A: I agree and I think there are many others who agree too. The panocracy suggests it's up to society at large to decide these things.
Q: "Perhaps a way forward for societies in an ideal world would be for many panocracies to exist within defined spheres. For example - building regulations. Should not the people making laws about 'building' know something about building things? Some random politician is going to know zip. Some civil servant - who is supposed to consult 'appropriate' bodies before drafting regulations will also be ignorant and have no accountability. Maybe we need a fractured system of rule-making? Those suggesting and arguing for new 'rules' should be part of a network of sufficiently qualified people and they have the ability to create new regulations for the sphere in which they have knowledge and/or qualifications. Moral or general questions - like your abortion example - could be open to general comment and a whole country referendum. Other questions, like drainage say, would be too technical for the average person."
A: Yes, I left this out of the review because it was getting a bit long-winded. There are several parts to the answer.
Firstly in Panocracy 41 I introduced the idea of 'scope' which could be used to effectively restrict the applicability to local areas (Dorchester in the example - https://panocracy.substack.com/p/panocracy-41).
Secondly, you're quite right that much expertise is lost in the process of creating regulations so they're usually less than ideal. However, I think that deciding in advance who should have a say in some regulation - who is sufficiently qualified - would be counterproductive. Frankly, if there was a debate about some new or existing drainage regulation, I'd be quite happy for civil engineers, builders, drain pipe makers, public health experts to slug it out. I think that comments from a couple of digger drivers might sometimes lead to some useful rethinking. On specialist topics, most people will be happy to leave it to the 'experts' anyway.
Q: "I would also advocate for a federal hierarchy of governance to create subsidiarity - so some issues dealt with at parish level totally, some at district level, some at county level and very little at national level - safety standards, international trade and defence only perhaps.
A: I tend to agree and it's really in the implementation - the 'scope' - that the system can be made to do this.
Sounds complicated. Maybe it's simpler in practice. I think a major problem with our current system of governance is that there are too many laws trying to regulate all of human life, which is madness. We need to have less new law. We need to repeal most law. Most laws are not big statutes - they are Statutory Instruments (Regulations.) Perhaps a way forward for societies in an ideal world would be for many panocracies to exist within defined spheres. For example - building regulations. Should not the people making laws about 'building' know something about building things? Some random politician is going to know zip. Some civil servant - who is supposed to consult 'appropriate' bodies before drafting regulations will also be ignorant and have no accountability. Maybe we need a fractured system of rule-making? Those suggesting and arguing for new 'rules' should be part of a network of sufficiently qualified people and they have the ability to create new regulations for the sphere in which they have knowledge and/or qualifications. Moral or general questions - like your abortion example - could be open to general comment and a whole country referendum. Other questions, like drainage say, would be too technical for the average person. I would also advocate for a federal hierarchy of governance to create subsidiarity - so some issues dealt with at parish level totally, some at district level, some at county level and very little at national level - safety standards, international trade and defence only perhaps.
Many thanks for the comprehensive and thought-provoking comment. I'll try to answer each section of it separately.
Q: "Sounds complicated. Maybe it's simpler in practice."
A: Like most things, it's complicated when you open the box. The devil is always in the detail. Only a pilot project that people can try for themselves will show whether they can get on board with it.
Q: "I think a major problem with our current system of governance is that there are too many laws trying to regulate all of human life, which is madness. We need to have less new law. We need to repeal most law. Most laws are not big statutes - they are Statutory Instruments (Regulations.)"
A: I agree and I think there are many others who agree too. The panocracy suggests it's up to society at large to decide these things.
Q: "Perhaps a way forward for societies in an ideal world would be for many panocracies to exist within defined spheres. For example - building regulations. Should not the people making laws about 'building' know something about building things? Some random politician is going to know zip. Some civil servant - who is supposed to consult 'appropriate' bodies before drafting regulations will also be ignorant and have no accountability. Maybe we need a fractured system of rule-making? Those suggesting and arguing for new 'rules' should be part of a network of sufficiently qualified people and they have the ability to create new regulations for the sphere in which they have knowledge and/or qualifications. Moral or general questions - like your abortion example - could be open to general comment and a whole country referendum. Other questions, like drainage say, would be too technical for the average person."
A: Yes, I left this out of the review because it was getting a bit long-winded. There are several parts to the answer.
Firstly in Panocracy 41 I introduced the idea of 'scope' which could be used to effectively restrict the applicability to local areas (Dorchester in the example - https://panocracy.substack.com/p/panocracy-41).
Secondly, you're quite right that much expertise is lost in the process of creating regulations so they're usually less than ideal. However, I think that deciding in advance who should have a say in some regulation - who is sufficiently qualified - would be counterproductive. Frankly, if there was a debate about some new or existing drainage regulation, I'd be quite happy for civil engineers, builders, drain pipe makers, public health experts to slug it out. I think that comments from a couple of digger drivers might sometimes lead to some useful rethinking. On specialist topics, most people will be happy to leave it to the 'experts' anyway.
Q: "I would also advocate for a federal hierarchy of governance to create subsidiarity - so some issues dealt with at parish level totally, some at district level, some at county level and very little at national level - safety standards, international trade and defence only perhaps.
A: I tend to agree and it's really in the implementation - the 'scope' - that the system can be made to do this.
Phew! I hope I've covered what you wanted.
Thank you! A very comprehensive answer.