I'll drink to that.

Hey ReverseEngineer, read up. Wisdom doesn't require word count.

Christ, I was expecting a flame-fest

I guess I underestimated the intelligence of PO posters, sorry!

How will they inforce it?? I'm guessing it won't be with UN sanctions.
Out of the four out of six that have died a preponderance were the religous fanatics and towards the end of the dieoff the quickest way to mass an world wide coalition army against you was to declare yourself and your people gods chosen ones. The world took the view that the only safe thing for everbody else to do was speed you and yours on your way to heaven.

So except for the religous details everybody loves the rest of my plan . Right?

Yep, I'm 100% in favor of that plan. Or diversity of plans, I should say.

Obviously the totalitarians will never agree with the anarchists.

Isn't there anything acceptable along the continuum between totalitarian and anarchist?

Democracy doesn't seem too bad. What would you suggest?

What is that continuum? It's either centrally controlled and (eventually) rotten to the core, or it isn't. This is binary, not a continuum.

As long as countries consist of tens of millions of people, local anarcho-syndicalist communes aren't actually going to govern countries---there would have to be some form of representative government. I'm still a fan of Thomas Jefferson's model of the original 18th century US-style constitutional government, where government's duties are limited, checks and balances restrict the power of all parts of the government, and the ability to vote is limited to an educated subset of the population.

And who decides? This is not workable, ultimately, as it is bound to be abused. Nothing but local consensus can work, IMO.

There's nothing wrong with mercantile and defence agreements at a higher level, but not control.

What is "local consensus"? All of my own family doesn't even get along with eachother. My daughter whines when I tell her to brush her teeth or go to bed. People are independently minded by nature and all forms of leadership require a certain amount of coersion.

Mutual support is a coercion which has worked well for the majority of human cultures. I'll support you if you support me. Don't support me and I'll drop you like a hot potato. If we both agree to support each other, then we've reached consensus. It's not really all that difficult, in my experience.

Th original post has been deleted so I'm gonna say:

Make a plan and work it, if it don't - change it.

Pops, apparently some people expect others to make a plan for them, and if they don't like it, they want others to come up with additional plans until they see one they like.

"We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas."

Back on the religion thing--most religions are complex enough that they have components that are at least sustainable. In the West, Christians have seized on the "dominate the earth" language in the Bible and have tended to disregard the many other pro-earth, anti-anthropocentric passages.

I think there are some fundamental problems with most monotheisms ultimately, but there is plenty of room for pro-earth understanding of the texts.

Glad to hear there are so many anarchists on the line. My view has always been that anarchism is more of an mode of action--always distrusting and working to weaken strong concentrations of power while encouraging more diffuse power structures--than an attainable, static, utopian state.