About GLASDOG
G.L.A.S.D.O.G.
is short for
Geo-Libertarian
Anarcho-Socialists
for
Directly Organized Government
So, let's break it down.
Geo-Libertarianism:
Geo Libertarianism is the concept that nobody has any right to any inherently control over others... that people should be treated as free entities, and are not to be controlled. Many people are aware of Libertarians, but not as many about Geo-Libertarians. The difference between a normal libertarian and a geo-libertarian is that libertarian recognized that taking rights away from all the people is just as bad as taking them away from one.
For example, natural resources. There was no magical fairy that came down one day and said that the resources of the world would be divided up among certain people. People used force to claim they had control of those natural resources, effectively stealing them from the community as a whole. Geo-libertarians reject claims of ownership of natural resources. Work, effort, time, produced goods, etc. Are all made using things people legitimately had a right to and traded, but natural resources are communal by their very nature. Any infraction on people's right to access natural resources requires that everyone receive fair trade for an individuals use of them.
In this regard, in a geo-libertarian view, natural resources (land, air, water, etc.) cannot be owned. They can only be leased from the community as a whole, and the community as a whole should be paid for it. And when that lease expires, it should revert back to the community. Products made from this leasing, on the other hand, would become individually owned (for example, leasing a plot of land to mine, the mined materials once converted into a product would converted into the realm of personal ownership.)
Obviously we have a long history of people claiming ownership over natural resources, and private possessions being made using them. In the event of such a shift of paradigm, created products would be grandfathered into the new system, but ownership of natural resources would be phased out (preferably in a way that respected people's money and effort already put into them. For example, a law that makes it so land cannot be sold or bought, but reverts to public ownership on death of the user. In the case of business ownership of natural resources, taxes would be slowly increased on land until it match the lease payments expected for it, and then their ownership would be converted to a long-term lease along the order of 50 years.
Further, pollution of air and water and/or their use would carry associated costs.
Natural resources should have global terms for how they are handled responsibly.
Anarcho-Socialism:
When people think of Anarchy and Socialism, they generally view these as extreme opposites. Although the way they are usually implemented, this is true, there is a way the two concepts work together in harmony.
In essence, anarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
Anarchy means there is a lack of hierarchy. No leaders, nobody who controls, no absolute rules.
Socialism means government works for the good of the society, and supplies goods and services.
Anarcho-Socialism holds that there should be no heirarchy, leaders, or absolute rules and the government that does exist should be a headless government that can be opted out of that merely works for the good of society, and provides goods and services such as leasing of communal resources, distribution of payment for communal resources, organizing communally requested actions, conflict resolution, protection, currency creation if needed, and other communally desired functions (but only if communally desired and explicitly voted in favor of).
Further, an Anarcho-Socialist government should have an opt-out option. If someone doesn't want to be part of it, they shouldn't have to be (but in doing so, they lose access to the goods and services that government provides).
Directly Organized Government
1 person, 1 vote, on all things.
There should be no head of government, no representatives. Issues should be directly voted on (and people should be able to vote on as much or as little as they want). Things to vote on should only happen by public referendum, AND votes in favor of something can be revoked at a later date (and removed once the voter passes away or leaves). Further, voting on issues should probably be done on an as-needed basis rather than a bi-annual event, and should be made accessible to all (recommending online methods, mail-home delivery of ballots, etc.)
is short for
Geo-Libertarian
Anarcho-Socialists
for
Directly Organized Government
So, let's break it down.
Geo-Libertarianism:
Geo Libertarianism is the concept that nobody has any right to any inherently control over others... that people should be treated as free entities, and are not to be controlled. Many people are aware of Libertarians, but not as many about Geo-Libertarians. The difference between a normal libertarian and a geo-libertarian is that libertarian recognized that taking rights away from all the people is just as bad as taking them away from one.
For example, natural resources. There was no magical fairy that came down one day and said that the resources of the world would be divided up among certain people. People used force to claim they had control of those natural resources, effectively stealing them from the community as a whole. Geo-libertarians reject claims of ownership of natural resources. Work, effort, time, produced goods, etc. Are all made using things people legitimately had a right to and traded, but natural resources are communal by their very nature. Any infraction on people's right to access natural resources requires that everyone receive fair trade for an individuals use of them.
In this regard, in a geo-libertarian view, natural resources (land, air, water, etc.) cannot be owned. They can only be leased from the community as a whole, and the community as a whole should be paid for it. And when that lease expires, it should revert back to the community. Products made from this leasing, on the other hand, would become individually owned (for example, leasing a plot of land to mine, the mined materials once converted into a product would converted into the realm of personal ownership.)
Obviously we have a long history of people claiming ownership over natural resources, and private possessions being made using them. In the event of such a shift of paradigm, created products would be grandfathered into the new system, but ownership of natural resources would be phased out (preferably in a way that respected people's money and effort already put into them. For example, a law that makes it so land cannot be sold or bought, but reverts to public ownership on death of the user. In the case of business ownership of natural resources, taxes would be slowly increased on land until it match the lease payments expected for it, and then their ownership would be converted to a long-term lease along the order of 50 years.
Further, pollution of air and water and/or their use would carry associated costs.
Natural resources should have global terms for how they are handled responsibly.
Anarcho-Socialism:
When people think of Anarchy and Socialism, they generally view these as extreme opposites. Although the way they are usually implemented, this is true, there is a way the two concepts work together in harmony.
In essence, anarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
Anarchy means there is a lack of hierarchy. No leaders, nobody who controls, no absolute rules.
Socialism means government works for the good of the society, and supplies goods and services.
Anarcho-Socialism holds that there should be no heirarchy, leaders, or absolute rules and the government that does exist should be a headless government that can be opted out of that merely works for the good of society, and provides goods and services such as leasing of communal resources, distribution of payment for communal resources, organizing communally requested actions, conflict resolution, protection, currency creation if needed, and other communally desired functions (but only if communally desired and explicitly voted in favor of).
Further, an Anarcho-Socialist government should have an opt-out option. If someone doesn't want to be part of it, they shouldn't have to be (but in doing so, they lose access to the goods and services that government provides).
Directly Organized Government
1 person, 1 vote, on all things.
There should be no head of government, no representatives. Issues should be directly voted on (and people should be able to vote on as much or as little as they want). Things to vote on should only happen by public referendum, AND votes in favor of something can be revoked at a later date (and removed once the voter passes away or leaves). Further, voting on issues should probably be done on an as-needed basis rather than a bi-annual event, and should be made accessible to all (recommending online methods, mail-home delivery of ballots, etc.)