We'd need some kind of electronic exchange between communities. That would make it take off.
However, this would never be allowed, even if it was totally transparent and contractually sound. That's the sad thing that neocon fed lovers don't seem to get about the banking monopoly.
But my point here is that what we can't do with money (local initiative organized to a higher level), we can do with speech. They can't really ban free assembly can they?
The local environment can be mostly free of federal intervention, and so the localities need to organize independent of, I mean, ignoring the state and federal authorities (political parties, machines).
This would be high-minded, except the concept here is that this organization would be political but wield no power. With no power, it's free from the corruption of state politics. But, with no power, what can it do.
That's the revelation! Power is held by sovereign individuals. The assembly of voices would empower the individual to act, giving greater confidence that others 'have his back'.
This would make civil disobedience an effective tool against a political apparatus designed to outright ignore local concerns.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: