Evolution (1/3) - My message to not only Americans (3/3)

Greetings everyone, as promised, today we will have a look at how to make our so called democracies better, so they can actually start working for the general population, the government officials will answer for their actions and even average citizens can truly affect how their country is governed, as well as fixing other issues that our democracies currently have. And after I lay down my opinions on how to structure our society (with our current technology level) in future, I will delve into theological debate with Christians (and I guess also partly with some jews) as that is also something I promised. :)

When talking about a new system, lets first have a look at one of the biggest problems in our current system and that is money in politics. There are many ways in how our current system runs on money. Of course, we have here direct donations to political parties and politicians to their campaigns and for other expenses of these parties. Then we have lobbying groups needing money for the salaries of their employees, events, gifts and sometimes research or in worse cases direct donations to politicians for their specific votes on specific legislation, like it is happening in the US right now, which in any civilized country would be called bribery.

When it comes to donations for political campaigns, those should, in my opinion, be completely banned, criminalized and replaced by a new system of a state granted citizen donations. This would mean that every adult citizen has a personal, state granted, yearly deposit of set amount (same for everyone) that refreshes at the beginning of every year and can be used to support any politician or political party, that is either already in a governmental position, or has announced to be running for a position in upcoming 12 months. If this deposit isn't used by a citizen, it is forfeited and state keeps it for their budget. This money is to be used only for political campaign related expenses with it being forbidden to be used as salaries (or speaking fees and so on) for politicians themselves, as well as salaries for their close relatives. Any money left that is not used for the campaign, can be used for political content related to the candidate or his policies and their promotion, or can be used for the next campaign. It will, in my opinion, be good that this money will be kept on the state owned accounts and won't be available to be moved unless used for paying previously mentioned expenses, to avoid fraud as much as possible.

Afterwards I think it also makes sense to give money to political parties based on their election success (based on how many votes they gained), which should be used for their organizational expenses in between the elections.

Any other donations (even in terms of paying travel expenses for other than OFFICIAL state related travels – which should be paid by the state) or gifts (except for the gifts of minuscular value) to politicians or political parties are to be forbidden and criminalized as bribery.

Also all of the state officials and individuals applying or running for these positions (this also includes employees of companies that are owned or co-owned by the state with higher share in the company than circa 20%; for the co-owned under 50% it's enough for only medium and higher ranked representatives), as well as all medium ranked representatives of companies and other institutions getting any state contracts, grants or subsidies together with all employees, working on projects based on state money, are to have completely transparent accounting, including their investments and so on, while also any company transactions (invoices are demanded for every single one) involved with these contracts, grants or subsidies, are to be completely transparent as well, based on request (based on 106/1999 freedom of information act in Czech law) available to any citizen. They are servants of the general public and the public deserves to be able to check up on their finances, if there is any suspicion of their corruption. State representatives are also by law forbidden to lie other citizens, when representing a governmental institution under hard labor sentence punishment.

Also, I don't know how it is in your country but in Czechia our statesmen have terrible pay considering the job they are doing (at least if they were to do it properly). In my opinion, they are to be paid as the best CEOs, since they are running the country. This will also work as a better incentive not to sell out, as they do currently do, but it should also be based on their performance. So for example, whenever a bill that they sponsor becomes a law they should get a small bonus. They should also get a significant bonus whenever their bill or actions (in case they are in executive branch) is successful in saving the state money, while keeping the quality of services intact, whenever their bill or actions significantly enhance quality of state services while keeping the costs similar to before, but they should also get their pay reduced when the opposite happens.

Getting back to lobbying, it is important to note that I see it as an important part of working democracies, as many different parts of society see different issues from different perspectives and their discussion and input is what should, in a good system, lead to finding correct solutions, leading to creation of correct legislation to address the issues at hand. For this, I think it makes perfect sense to use one chamber of our current democratic legislative bodies, that is often (at least in Czech Republic) quite secondary and that is a senate.

This chamber, in my opinion, should be completely restructured into technocratic body that is not being voted on by a general public, but instead, it should be voted on by different parts of the society like all members of “labor unions” for the specific different senate seats (specific split and more info can be found in my personal notes that is being linked here under the title: government). To put it in simple terms, doctors would be voting for the doctor's representatives, workers on farms would be voting for their representatives, teachers for their representatives and so on. These senators would then have (by the state) paid their own assistants and researchers, that are to look into all of the input that their voting bodies bring to their attention and prepare legislation based on all of this input. While I think that their serving term should be quite large (8 years), if at least a 0,5% of their voting base feels like they are doing their job incorrectly, they can be deposed similarly to any other state official (more explained later) by a petition and eventual successful (60%+) vote of their voter base. This would mean that apart from other governmental bodies, it can happen that the different senators will often have different times of elections, as these disposals will lead into new election cycles and therefore different ends of their terms being served.

These “labor unions” are to be run by the senator's team, with some of their earlier mentioned assistants focusing on the day to day of these bodies. These assistants focusing on unions work are to be voted in democratically by their members and any member of the union is to be able to run for these leadership (assistant) positions, as well as to nominate their senate representative, which (senate representative candidate) needs to be supported by at least 0,5% of the union membership – signed petition.

In my opinion, there should be also a new type of lobbying, which is to be directly accessible to any adult citizen, explained later below in legislative process.

Any other type of lobbying of state officials is to be completely forbidden except for foreign company lobby groups, that are to be all registered under laws similar to American FARA with hairsplitting oversight, official foreign diplomatic missions by foreign states, or through different programs of their embassies, whose materials are to be also labeled as such. The senate seats specific to the economy (except for farming, which is to be always represented by a set amount of seats, voted on by members of communes and private farming license owners – ideally private owners vote their own representatives, while communes vote in their own, based on the split between communes and private owners in the land distribution) should also be moved or removed, depending on a split of how many workers are in those industries and the GDP it brings to the economy (20-35% power in deciding who gets the seat should go to the GDP value and the rest of the power should be given to the work force size). If there are many small industries that cannot hit the needed value to get a seat, they should be lumped together and get to vote for a representative that represents those industries jointly. Apart from classic worker unions, you will find in my notes, that there are senate seats also for occupations like philosophers, so for more information, have a look at my notes.

Since we already started talking about the senate, lets also have a look at the rest of the legislative bodies and how should the power be split between them. Parliament is in my opinion quite simple and should stay very similar to, as it is right now, which means being voted on by the whole population of a country, with a difference that except for it being a clear popular vote, I believe it to be the best, if the power of the citizens vote (how many representatives the region/city gets) is also tied to an area size of the region/city they live in (for which they vote on representatives) with the vote power having a split of around30-50% tied to the region size (based on a new electoral college system in the US I have prepared here) and the rest of the votes power would be based on the population size of these regions/cities. This way, we will avoid city population having an overpowering representation in the parliament, as it has been currently, with countryside problems being largely neglected. For this system to work, gerrymandering has to be completely banned, as it should be anyway, even with the way the current popular vote system works. I would also encode into the system, that in case the population start shifting back into the countryside (likely with the Kibbutzim) and starts leaving cities en mass (proportionally), the land vote value can (proportionally) slightly decrease, as then the need for this mechanism can become even completely irrelevant (even thought highly unlikely) and I can even see situations where the city population would end up being underrepresented.

Last but not least, let's talk about the presidential office. This one should, in my opinion, be completely dismantled, as it is ridiculous to expect that one person can properly focus on all of the state issues and president's responsibilities should be divided. Instead of the president, after many years thinking through the new democracy system, I propose to establish an office of 7 consuls. 5 of which would be voted on by general public, one would be voted on members of current justice system (judges, public defenders, public attorneys and actively practicing attorneys) and the last one would be voted on by members of security forces (army, police forces and other security state institutions/agencies), with them having different powers and responsibilities.

Firstly, let's look at the main 5 that are being voted on by the general public. All of them are to be voted in for 25 years, with elections being held every 5 years (1 each) with only one term possible. Each one of them is gonna have a responsibility for a specific focus. 1st focus being Industry, 2nd being services, 3rd state services, 4th being farming and cultural issues and the fifth one is gonna hold a position of controller, who will focus on reviewing previously passed legislation, as well as state organizations with intention of enhancing or even deleting them, as well as being the main person overseeing work of general inspectorate of security forces and army police, who are forces to whom security forces consul (the one being voted on by security forces) has no access to. On legislation of a specific focus (after passing in parliament and senate) a single signature of a corresponding consul is enough to pass or veto the law, apart for it being overruled by at least other 3 consuls, or by the passed law being challenged by the judicial consul for being unconstitutional, which I will explain later. Any foreign policies are to be confirmed or decided by at least 3 of the consuls except for special cases like going to war (which also needs an overwhelming 66% support of fully filled parliament and senate) where 4 are needed. How strong are consul(s) vetoes depends on which type of this system your country decides to use.

In this system, all 5 publicly elected consuls are to have full access to all of the work and documents of the other consuls and that includes also oversight of all of the army police and general inspectorate of security forces, which are the only security departments which don't fall under oversight of security forces consul, who's role is mostly being a lead of strategic planning and oversight of these forces, as well as advisory role to consuls and minister of defense and interior, similarly to current chiefs of general staff.

Similarly to our current democracies, which can be parliamentary, presidential or semi presidential systems, I believe it to be best, if we test out different versions of this system. The presidential system, would have an option of executive orders, similarly to current USA system, that are to be confirmed by 3 publicly elected consuls and are to come into power almost immediately, as long as they are not challenged by a judiciary consul for being unconstitutional, or there isn't a constitutional complaint filed against them, either by at least 10 members of either governmental chamber or general public itself by collecting 0,5% of country's population signatures in a petition. This postponement can be overruled by 66% vote of fully filled parliament as well as fully filled (if not fully filled due to an ongoing electoral vote, the vote still goes on but the missing seat doesn't subtract from the total needed votes) senate and at least 4 publicly elected consuls, in which case the executive order comes into effect until the constitutional court rules on the case, who's ruling is final and must be done in a time limit of 30 days (expandable by max of another 30 days) and has the highest priority, jumping ahead any other possible cases the court may be involved at the moment. Also, the executive orders cannot be used to wage war that hasn't been sanctioned by standard procedure, like they are being used currently in the US for bombardment of multiple countries, that haven't been declared wars to properly by the Congress. If there are challenges to 2 or more different executive orders, the ones challenged later will get postponed until the ones before them are resolved by the constitutional court.

When it comes to the division of executive powers, it of course depends on which type of the system the country decides to go for, but in parliamentary and semi presidential system, I believe it to be the best that the winning parties in the parliament are to create a government that are to have a majority in the parliament and are a main executive body of the government, while the consuls play mostly advisory and oversight role (in semi presidential version there can be powers similar to French presidential powers and consuls should also be leads when it comes to foreign policies), but if done well, they are to also shape public opinion (apart from additional powers mentioned below), and therefore also the legislation, before it gets to their table, with sound and detailed arguments. In future I will be working more in detail on the specific powers for each version, other than the powers already mentioned in this article.

In the presidential version of this system, I would try 2 sub versions of the system. One where the parliament also creates a majority supported government, but in this version, these ministers are to serve consuls as their underlings, with them being able to be even removed by the consuls (if there is a proper reason, like failure in completion of set tasks) and asked the majority parties to offer a replacement. Other option, which can also have 2 sub versions, would be that the consuls can straight up choose their own government, similarly to how it is done currently in the US. Here, I would also like to see senate approval of these appointees. In the second sub version, they would have to choose from the people elected in the parliament.

When it comes to the legislative process, I believe that in all versions of this system, all persons in senate (especially there as they are the technocratic branch of the government), parliament and consuls can introduce new legislation, that is to be considered by the legislative process (explained below). Consuls and ministers are to also have a power to task senate with preparation of legislature on specific topic, for which they are to specify goals, which the legislature is to achieve and can even state provisions that are to be included in an initial 1st reading.

When it comes to legislative process of creating new laws. As already mentioned, any person in a position of parliament deputy, senator or consul can introduce a bill. This bill then goes to a parliament, where it goes through 3 readings, similarly to how it works in Czech republic currently, with a difference that every bill that passes through first reading goes immediately online for public discourse, where any adult citizen who has a "digital locker" (which is something like an email address hosted by the government, used for online communication between the citizens and different governmental bodies, that is linked to the citizen ID number, so it doesn't need any other verification, as it is being verified by the government itself, in person, during creation) can comment on the specific provisions of the legislation (similarly to comments on google drive documents) asking for it to be removed (with explanation why), altered (with exact specifics how and also explanation why). or added upon (with exact specifics how and also explanation why). These comments then can be voted on by the rest of the citizens with yes or no votes (which can be also changed, in case the person changes opinion, until the start of the 7 days period for legislatures explained in the paragraph below), which then shows how big of a support is there for these changes between the population, also the comments can be reacted upon with additional comments, similarly to how comments work in google docs and those of course can be also voted on with yes or no.

For such documents not to be completely messy, while all of the comments (linkable to anyone logged in within the commenting system) are to be visible (in full view) to everyone, some comments are to be "highlighted" (in regular view - views are easily switchable with one click on top right of the document). Highlighted comments are to be the ones that are from members of legislative bodies, comments that are having high engagement (sensible % of all up or down votes, high volume of positive ratings over negative ones), are made by citizens with history of high positive rating on their past comments, or are made by the "council of experienced"???(explained later). Eventually once the legislation goes to its second reading all of the highlighted comments with overall positive rating of at least 60/40 ratio are mandatory to be discussed (apart from others I hope that the legislatures will come up with by themselves) and voted upon in the parliament, as adjustments of the legislature and if not acted upon or acted upon with adjustments, parliament deputies that sponsored the bill (or if none did, one of the ones that voted against the change) have to explain in detail, why they haven't acted upon them and that response will be a highligted response to the comment in the second run of citizen lobbying (explained below). There is to be at least 30 days long period for comments and 7 additional days for legislatures to study up on the highlighted comments, between the 1st and 2nd reading of each law. After the legislation passes through parliament's 3rd reading, it goes to the senate. Here, the legislature again goes into the commentary mode for minimum of 30 plus 7 days, since it has been likely heavily adjusted after the 2nd reading in the parliament. Any overall positive highlighted comments from the first reading, that weren't acted upon, stay (with reset of the votes to 0) in the document as highlighted comments, with also highlighted (mandatory and detailed) response to these comments from the parliament deputies sponsoring the bill, or one of the ones who voted against it, in situattions where there was no sponsor of the bill in the parliament. If the original commenter decides to respond to it, their response will be automatically highlighted. Same rule with discussion and votes on overall positive highligted commets applies here as well. Senators then vote on the legislation themselves, where they can either approve it without changes, send it back to parliament with exact change suggestions or vote completely against it completely, which just means that it goes back to parliament without change suggestions. If it is approved, it goes to Consuls for signature, if it is sent back to parliament, the senate can be overruled by over 50% fully packed parliament vote without changes to the law. The change suggestion version can be approved by over 50% vote in parliament. If there isn't support for any of it, the bill dies, if it is approved in any version, it goes to Consuls for signature. Consuls have the ability to veto the bill, if it is vetoed by them, then it matters what was the previous behavior of the senate. In a version where senate approved the bill right away, as well as in the version, where they sent it with changes back to parliament and the parliament approved the bill with their changes, the bill goes to the parliament and it needs over 50% of fully packed parliament vote to pass. If the senate changes were ignored or if senate was against the bill completely and was overruled by the parliament anyway, after the Consul veto, the parliament needs to have at least 60% fully packed parliament vote to pass the legislation. I also see a possibility where in the presidential system, consul veto kills the bill completely, but I think there need to be additional rules there.

Important note, for this system not to be abusable (by the government creating bot accounts out of people that don't use their digital locker or didn't create it), it is very important that these comment votes are verifiable by the public, therefore, while during the vote it is not needed to know the identification of people posting the comments or up and down votes, they are however available to be requested by anyone interested, based on the 106/1999 freedom of information act in current Czech law. Government is not to be trusted, it is to be monitored. Also this comment system is to be also applicable for regional governments and their proposals (votable only by citizens with residence in those regions).

With legislative and executive branches out of the way, let's dive into judicial branch of the this system. Similarly to many current systems, it makes sense to me that it is divided into lower (district and county), higher (state) and constitutional courts. Similarly to the 2 previous branches, also here it is immensely important that first of all, we focus on elimination of the corruption. That is a reason, why I propose that the judges preside over cases always (except for the constitutional court where it makes sense that all of them do) in 3s and make their decision on guilt of the accused based on the unanimous vote and the sentence should be decided by the average of their joint opinion, while all their votes, arguments and opinions being transparently recorded. In a situation where unanimous vote can't be reached even after prolonged discussion between the judges, simple majority vote is enough, but if the guilty verdict is decided, the minimum and maximum possible sentence is to be lowered by 33,3%. Also, these groups of 3s are not supposed to be stagnant but instead, these judges ought to be rotating, meaning that whenever there is a new case, 3 judges are randomly picked, out of the judges related to that specific court, and grouped together for that specific case. This system makes it harder to bribe justice system, as you have to bribe 3 or at least 2 judges instead of just one and makes it hard to get a judge, that you have in your pocket, to preside over your case as they are randomly picked for each case. Additionally, there is to be a deposing mechanism for seriously unjust judges, similar to the deposing of politicians and high government officials, that I will explain later below.

Before we jump to that, let's first look at how are these judges appointed. In district and county courts, also because of the higher total amount of judges needed, not every judge needs to have a lawyer degree, as long as at least two in the group presiding does (so minimum 2/3 – so each of them can “police“ the other one in case, they are making shit up - of all judges in these courts are mandated to have lawyer degree). How that would work is that there are 3 different ways of appoint judges to these courts. 1/3 being done through pick by the (can be even first preselected by an independant body containing justice consul, politicians, attorneys, scholars and other members of wider civil society) senate, that is to be accepted through executive branch (either ministers of justice or consuls) from a pool of persons with law degree that are either nominated or apply for the position and finished the exam of logical reasoning and knowledge of the law. Second third being picked by the senior judges themselves from the same pool as the first 1/3 and the last third would be voted in by the regional (firstly district and out of district judges eventually even county ones) communities themselves, which is the pool that doesn't necessarily need the law degree, but they still need to either apply for the position or be nominated (and accepted) and finish a logical reasoning exam, as well as knowledge of the law exam, which is to be much simpler than the one set up for the lawyers thirds, focused more on just basic principles of justice. This will allow more in depth window for communities into the justice process that is being served to them. Judge elections should not be allowed to run advertisement campaigns and instead these seats should be reserved for people with already good local reputation, that are known to be just and honest people. So when the group of judges is assembled, firstly you randomly pick 1 out of the first pool, then another from the second pool and after that the last one from the citizen elected pool. Once appointed, the position is for lifetime (with maximum age of serving being around 70) apart from being deposed for being unjust, or for stepping down by the judges themselves. When it comes to the higher courts, these seats are to be reserved only for judges with law degree. With one half of them being picked by the same executive path, as is the first third of the lower degree courts, and the second half being picked by the senior judges themselves, both picking from the pool of county courts judges with law degree. Similarly, the constitutional court is to be reserved only for judges with law degree, picked from the pool of higher court judges, where, in my opinion, for the constitutional court being as independent as possible, the judges (all of them) themselves should be the only ones voting for who becomes the new constitutional judge. Constitutional judges are also the only ones, who are to have limited serve time, which I would set on around 12-18 years maximum, after which they can go back to being judges in higher courts again, if interested. Originally I thought about judges being the ones to pick new judges for all courts, but I think that in the longterm, it could lead into problems, where the judicial branch would have more power than both the legislative and executive branch combined, which has to be avoided.

With having all 3 branches of the government layed out, let's now have a look at the way to depose the state officials, who are unable, either due to their inability, corruption or any other reason, to do their job properly. I have already talked about the senators, so let's look at the parliament deputies and the executive branch, which are voted in directly mostly based on their election promises. Unfortunately, in our democracies, way more often than not, we see that these promises are rarely kept (often they do the complete opposite), as these politicians have no real incentive to keep their promises, apart from maybe to win another election, or honor, which most of them lack. Since such motivation seems to be insufficient, there is a need for creationof a metaphorical whip, so that the population has leavers to keep them in line, in case they stray from the path, advertised during their campaigns. This imaginery whip needs to be strong enough to motivate them to stick with their promises, while it cannot be so overpowering, that once in power, they cannot change their original plan or opinion, if the situation and information they have access to, requires it. This imaginery whip would be that every citizen can create petition, that needs to in detail specify how did the politician break their campaign promises, which if signed by at least 0.5% of their constituents, is to be brought to higher courts (for state level politicians) or county courts (for regional and district politicians), where the politician has to defend their actions (inaction is also a type of action) that went against their promises and if the court decides that their arguments for different chosen path are weak, or even completely irrational, is to be deposed and property that they acquired during their time in office is to be taken away. If their decisions actually even seriously harmed the country and therefore also its citizens, they can even be sentenced to prison, as any other criminal should. This result of course can be challenged and afterwards it goes to courts of higher instance, which for regional and district politicians means higher court and for state politicians means constitutional court (which should always decide by at least supermajority). Those decisions are final. Also the citizens can also use their share in fund for proper defense to bolster legal team against these politicians.

Also, there should be no immunity for politicians in general, as it only promotes more corruption, laziness to do their job properly and therefore party line voting, without them doing their own due diligence. I also see the argument of no immunity leading into politicians being scared to pass more risky legislation or moves inside the government as inadequate, as even wrong decisions can be defended, if they were based on proper evidence and logically sound reasoning to pursue them when made originally. Additionally all of the state officials (except for secret services and undercover policemen performing their duties on targeted individuals [but even here the interrigation rules mentioned bellow apply]. When releasing information to general public, they are to be truthful as well) and employees (including state owned and coowned companies), when performing their duties, or whenever they are speaking in official capacity, are to be forbidden to lie to its citizens, under threat of criminal prosecution, with especially harsh sentences for police and other security forces lying to interrigated persons during the interrigations.

Now let's have a look at the way that judges can be deposed of their positions, as I believe it to be very important, so there is a backdoor mechanism, controlled by the population itself (so there is little pressure created by the politicians on justice system), to get rid of them, as without being accountable to its population, there is no full circle of oversight and accountability within the system, therefore, judges could fall in cahoots with politicians to cover for them, or worse, they could even become way too powerful, controlling the executives through collaboration with justice consul and irrational explanation of constitution.While I also believe that such measures should be used very rarely and only in cases of great injustice being perpetrated by them and therefore it should be quite hard to do so, for judges not to be afraid to pass unpopular sentences, while the deposition also being rooted in law. Not a simple problem to solve, but I think it is possible. Here again the deposition can be started by a petition signed by at least 0,5% of the constituents of the area, where the judge presides, but also by either joint agreement of consuls (at least 3 out of 5 votes) or motion from minister of justice. All of the requests for deposition have to contain at least 3 situations, where, in the opinion of petitioners or executives, the judge created a grave injustice. Such injustice has to be in detail explained, supported by the wording of law. Once this motion is filed, then it depends whether it is about regional or higher/constitutional judge. In the situation, where it is about regional judge, during the next elections in that region, or if none are happening soon, once a year (after giving the judge time to deliver his written defense on his reasoning behind the judgments made, and additional time for voters to study the case), vote is to happen in the region, on whether he is to be deposed, where 68% of the vote is needed for the judge to be deposed, where all of the voters on this issue have to solemnly swear, that they studied the cases (full transcripts are to be released) in detail. When it comes to higher and constitutional judges, after the proper given time for defense and study, the same body that is voting for justice consuls, is to have a vote on the deposition of the judge, where 60% of the vote is needed for successful disposal.

Since, we have all 3 branches of government out of the way, let's take a look at so called “4th pillar of democracy“, the media. I am pretty sure that I am not the only one, who feels like the current legacy media completely failed this mission, but the problem with media is much larger and unless something is done about it, it will only get worse with the AI tools becoming even more powerful than they currently are. So what are the problems you ask? I think it makes sense to summarize them into 4 main points: free access to information and proper sourcing, investigative journalism and as usual, money influencing what is being written and ethical code.

With money it is quite simple and any media house, or any news related, information spreading organizations (includes current think tanks, research centres focusing on politics of specific regions and other similar orgs.) that is being funded (by at least 10% of its overall funding) by foreign (non state funding included) capital is to be registered as a foreign agent (which also means that the accounting of these organizations is to be completely transparent), with them clearly and visibly claryfing so, on every main page of their many different publications. They are to also clearly and visibly state such information in every article or other publication piece that is just a bit related to politics of any country around the world and that is to be done at least at the beginning and the end of each such publication (The message should be structured something like this: „This publication is registered as foreign agent, fundedin 40% by the EU and in 30% by UK capital. 60% of this capital is coming from their state programs, while the rest being funded from private enterprises). The capital is to be traced to the parent companies and the citizenry of their owners, even when it comes from their subsidiaries. Similar type of message should be mentioned, if the publication is funded by local governments. When it comes to funds coming from the advertisers, this rule (with a caveat that 1 dollar is enough to mandate such announcement) also applies (with specifying also which company), whenever there is any publication related to the advertiser business (like if there is any article about a sickness and their advertiser is a company that manufactures drugs to combat the sickness – counts also if the company is owned by a person who owns that company even if the advertiser isn't specifically the pharma company - , or if their advertiser is an oil company and the article is about nuclear power plant or energy sector in general and so on). This is to inform readers and viewers that there are likely biases inside such publications, which helps us orient in this crazy world we live in, where even private money isn't safe from the governmental influence and is often used to actually hide it. Also, whenever the publication is quoting different information organization or person working for such organization, they are to mention their funding in the article as well. And yes, this is a workload strain on such publishing companies, but if we cannot even force journalists and other publishers of information (especially related to politics) to verify and transparently note their funding, then we are trully lost society and we don't deserve nice things.

Once the money transparency in information space is solved, let's focus on quality of today's journalism. Talking from my own experience of combating my immensely corrupt government of Czech republic, vast majority of journalists nowadays don't do any real investigative work and are pretty much just quoting what politicians say, without even checking whether it is true. Because of this, it was possible for our former minister of interior to lie about an European migration pact for a whole year into our media, who parroted his words without anyone fact checking him, until I saw some twitter discussions about it, read the law myself and twice confronted the motherfucker and his lies in his live streamed election campaign, when he toured the country to spew his nazi propaganda. Only after this, the media picked up on it and started writing about it. Same thing would happen when it came to lies of our former prime minister, when no Czech news organization could catch (which took only about 15 minutes to verify, if they were up to date with EU legislation, otherwise it would take about 2 days to read it through) his lies, claiming that his government was not the one that voted for emission allowances and other “green“ destruction policies in the European council and blamed it on the previous administration, again until I went to his livestreamed campaign rally and spit the facts in his traitorous face, that the media started to write about it. Or Ursula von „Nazi whore“ der Leyean and rest of the traitors in EU couldn't lie in media, that Digital Service Act doesn't make any new speech illegal, that wasn't illegal before, without media reporting on it. Media that let such blatant lies pass have nothing to do with journalism and are at best just reporting or commentary of recent events (similarly to any average Youtuber doing so from his mom's basement, but even those often do way more research than our current journalists), and should be by law called tabloids and people working for them shouldn't be called journalists. Journalists by at least my standard, have to believe nothing that the people in power say, verify the information, challenge it with their own questions, ensuring its accuracy and truthfulness to best of their ability, as public is expecting them to do so, and if they are spewing easily verifiable lies, like who voted for which legislation or what is in that legislation, they should be criminally accountable for their words, with minimal sentence of forbidding them to perform journalism or tabloid work. Without accountability, their motivation (except for the truly honorable ones, that in current media landscape will likely never get to write the articles, they want to write) will be elsewhere. So there is a lot of cleaning up to do when it comes to journalism, so I propose a new system on how to report on news.

First, there needs to be a clear distinction between journalism and news reporting in our current form, that should be renamed to tabloid news. Done probably by clearly separating these segments similarly, to how media currently separates f.e. sport and news segments, because similarly to sport segment, current news are really just an entertainment segment with little value, as paraphrasing things that are happening without any or little additional research can be done by any 12 year old, and the only real value these organizations usually bring is that they are at least there to record what is said. This distinction has to be done, so it is transparent and visible, for the people consuming the content, that people know not to trust any information that is mentioned in tabloid news, even if the reported things are said by the prime minister or the president, as the information is not verified. In such tabloid articles (whether written or TV content) the commentator/reporter's job is to verify, that the person actually said what they are reporting on and I don't need anything else from them. Then there should be a journalism segment, where every factual information is to be thoroughly verified (linking to the primary sources-even if they are not in the same language) and here the accountability on what is being said or written should be tough. Unfortunately such journalism work is heavily time consuming and needs way more workers than average tabloid organization, so it makes sense to me to financially support it by new laws.

This financial support, would however not come from the state budget, instead whenever journalists expose a company or their empolyees, speaking in an official capacity, in a lie about their products, or services, which tricks or hurts their consumers or wider society, the company should be charged and if they are confirmed for lying in courts, they are to be fined (apart from other criminal convictions, if they are needed, because their lies caused deaths and so on) and a substantial part (10 % finding fee cut sounds fair) of the fine should go to the journalist (and if they are employeed by a media house, part – probably 50/50 split – of it should go to the media house), who exposed the truth. Same should also be true about exposing lies of government officials and corruption cases of state employees or in projects financed by state funds. In the situations of theft, or corruption cases, where the state recoups some of their money, stolen by the mentioned persons. the journalists would have a finding fee cut out of the money that was recouped by the state. When it comes to situations of officials just lying to cover their or elses mistakes, covering for somebody's behavior or to manipulate the population, without any major financial loss, journalists are to be paid out of the pockets of these individuals. This way, not only there will be a proper financial incentive for journalists to actually start focusing on exposing the lies happening withing the society, but also there will finally be a proper financial reward for the hard work that real investigative journalism is, which will lead into journalism being much more financially independent, which is immensely important for any successful democracy. When it comes to interviews, any interview, where questions are known to the subject beforehand, or the subject has time to prepare their answers (questions and answers sent via email), is to be labeled as tabloid interview. Only interviews where the person has to come up with answers on the spot, are to be labeled as journalism and even there, the journalist has an obligation to verify factual claims made by the person, unless the interview is live streamed, in which case there is an exception to the rule, while even there should be a follow up with veryfing the claims. Also, if tabloid news won't call themselves tabloids, while not following strict rules dedicated to journalistic media, they are to be heavily fined. Journalists are to keep archives on verifications and proof for their claims, so even when they are wrong with their verifications, they can prove, where they were coming from and courts should be reasonable in charging journalists for writing lies, where convictions should be meant only for blatant lies and lazy or non existant research only. Also, if journalist claims that somebody is lying, they are to explain and show evidence to why the person is lying in the publication or at least link to the publication. where their lie is disproved.When it comes to unverifiable claims by persons, who might not even want to be named, journalists are to be able to mention them, but they are always mandated to say that these claims couldn't be verified. I also like the idea of journalist guilds with their own ethics codes that are enforcable, that you can also find in my notes.

One last important note. This doesn't mean that there should only be one narrative that is allowed. Quite the opposite and ideally, it should actually create conversation between opposing opinions. Let's show how this system would work with for example with alleged massacres in Bucha. The Ukrainian side, and most of the western media, claims that at the beginning of the Ukrainian war, Russian soldiers were gathering up Ukrainian citizens and executing them en mass, providing physical and image evidence of these crimes after reclaiming the territory. Even thought it makes little sense for such thing to be based on orders (especially since they didn't even clean up after themselves, as Russians retreated from Bucha without a fight out of their own will, as a sign of good will during Istanbul negotiations, so they had plenty time to clean up and such actions would only bolster resolve of Ukrainians to fight, as well as bolster western support for Ukraine, the second part especially being something Russia would want to avoid) unless the Russian soldiers went rogue and did so out of their own cruelty, legacy media ran with it. On the others side, Russia completely rejects the notion of Bucha massacre being perpetrated by their soldiers all together and there is serious evidence to support it, as there are even western journalists, who were at Bucha right after the Russian forces left it and they claim that they have seen only a few to none dead civilian bodies there, when arriving. Also, these journalists and other witnesses claim that they have seen Ukrainian forces moving dead bodies from different conflict areas into Bucha and orchestrating the whole Bucha massacre scene. This course of events would also be supported by the timeline of the reporting, as the information about Bucha massacre didn't show up after the Ukrainians recaptured the territory, but it took many (up to 2 weeks for larger proofs of alleged massacres) days before the news started to report on alleged mass executions there. All the while, if Ukrainians found Bucha in such way, there is nothing easier than taking immediately pictures, that would spread like an avalanche in an instant, so why such a delay? So here we have 1 story with 2 completely different narratives. Both having place in articles made by real journalists. However, if you are just parroting the official story made by the Ukrainian government, without having own journalists there to collaborate the story and especially without even asking questions, why it took so long to report these crimes or lamenting about this massacre not making sense from Russian strategic point of view, it is just a tabloid or propagandist news articles, especially when it comes to war, where both sides are expected to lie. When it comes to the Russian supported narrative, same applies, unless it is stated that the claims of the witnesses couldn't be verified or there is a serious proof to their story, as well as without doing a proper inquiry about the identity of murdered civilians (and therefore also their residence, as if revealed, could substantially collaborate the story about dead bodies being moved from different conflict zones). Journalist's main job is to ask sensical, relevant questions and if they are not doing so, while instead painting a narrative for you that just copies opinion of either a government or any media that they couldn't or didn't verify, since they were not on the ground, they are no journalists but they are either propagandists or tabloid writers. As we say in Czech: “One grandma was saying“ is not an evidence and even evidence can be fabricated and journalists are to suspect it being fabricated every time, even from other media house.

When it comes to free access to information, I find it immensely important that the basic fact reporting isn't behind a paywall, as that helps in dividing the population, who are currently often living in completely different realities. If you look into my notes, you will find different ways in solving this issue. One can be a creation of a bulletin timeline board like articles that are to report just on facts related to the topic at hand and is to be updated in time whenever new things related to it happens, that the publication is talking about in their locked articles, which is to be accessible for free, while the rest of the publication (like opinion pieces) can be locked behind a paywall. Another way to solve such issue could be that the publications locked behind paywall, are mandatory to have summaries of their articles written by person or AI, open to public, where the reader can ask 3 questions related to the article and the AI would answer. Another way, which I like a lot is that, if a publication breaks a story, where they uncovered previously undisclosed (factual) information, this article is mandatory to be left open for free for anyone to see. Also, when it comes to mentioning any factual information in articles made by journalists, they are to always link to the source material, that is being talked about, whether it is a new law or an incident report, or report made by a different media company. Obviously, here I am talking about the internet based media and these are just a few ideas that I came up with, which are far from perfect and I am pretty sure that other people might find better solutions, but this is a problem that needs to be solved. I think also journalist guilds with strict code of conduct (that is legally enforceable) and reputation, where journalists kinda work on their own, under guild umbrella, could be a way to go.

Now, let's talk about the secret services, which are another huge problem of our current democracies for four main reasons. First one being an inadequate oversight, the second one being a non transparent presentation of evidence when presenting their findings to the general public, whenever any current policy is supposed to be shaped based on their findings, the third one being the rules for techniques they can and can't use and the fourth one being an incredible long period (if any at all) before their files are made unredacted and accessible to the general public.

With the oversight, it is quite simple, firstly all 5 publicly elected consuls plus the security forces consul are to have almost full access to their files, then also the parliament and senate are to internally elect a 10 person (from within these chambers or independent specialists) body, that is also to have access to their even ongoing work. This access is to be almost completely unredacted with also knowing which methods (description containing substance without unnecessary details sounding like: listening device used in targets frequent area of stay) are being used. Exceptions being: knowing which exact agents are on which mission, agent's personal information and likeness, at what exact locations are the missions being performed, intelligence work being used against the oversight persons (unless it becomes relevant because they betrayed the country by abusing the intelligence, in which case that is to be made public and they are to be persecuted in courts based on the evidence, if it is certain, or decided by a public discourse if there is a serious suspicion), who are to be under the heaviest surveillance (together with their close relatives), with their knowledge of that being happening, when accepting the position of overseeing the secret forces operations, as well as them accepting, that they are required to fully cooperate whenever the secret services request access to even their personal lives, data and so on. Here, I am still working on a big problem of possible blackmail by corrupt secret services, after successful entrapment from the secret police itself, that is to be allowed as explained later.

Also, to avoid any unnecessary leaks and for easier investigation, in case any leaks occur, it makes sense to me that the information on missions are to be split between the persons in these bodies. Meaning that only one or two persons in each oversight body (consuls included) have access to a specific mission and who that is, is decided by a random draw each time during the sessions of these bodies (consuls included) unless they become relevant for policy making (in which case, they are to be revealed also to the general public), to avoid collusion between the secret services and some persons in these bodies. Also the oversight persons are to be required to share the information with the rest of the controlling body (after necessary consultation with judge consul), whenever they feel like the secret services are abusing their power. The body will then decide, by simple majority, whether to release the information to courts, who will decide whether to immediately release it to general public and start a court hearings on the persons who perpetrated alleged abuse of power. This procedure is by law required, where if not done and the abuse will be shown later, when the documents are released to public, they will be liable for criminal prosecution together with the judge consul in case he was consulted and decided not to share the information with courts.

The persons put into oversight positions are not to need any special security approval from these forces, with exception in which they have a serious suspicion or are certain that these persons are committing or committed a high treason (§ 309 in Czech criminal code), crimes needed for high treason even without cooperation with foreign power (§ 310, § 312, § 313 or § 314 of Czech criminal code) or they are committing abusing the authority of an office person (§ 329 of Czech criminal code), as well as if they are certain that these persons are secretly practicing any behavior, that goes in contradiction to their public image and therefore could be blackmailed for it. In all cases, secret services are to present the evidence for such suspicion or certainty of such behavior to the general public and let the public discourse shape their appointment into an oversight position. This of course only works if freedom of speech is guaranteed and respected fully with only exception there being restriction for calls of violence.

Solution to the second problem is quite self explanatory and is to be the same, as release of the evidence in the paragraph above. So let's have a look at the rules for methods being used by the secret service forces that in my opinion also need adjustment. First of all, I believe that some amount of torture is to be allowed in special cases for limited time only being 4-6 hours mentioned in my personal notes under “is torture ever justifiable?”. Also, I believe that the entrapment (with restriction of human trafficking not being permisable) is to be allowed, when it comes to state officials of medium and higher positions, as well as for individuals applying or running for these positions, this also includes employees of companies that are owned or co-owned by the state with high share in the company circa 20%+, as well as representatives of companies and other institutions getting any state contracts, grants or subsidies.

When it comes to release of unredacted secret services files, I think there should be a mandatory release of all files after around 5 years, unless there is a serious need to hide the information because the mission is still ongoing, or there is a need to keep them hidden because of state security (which has to be agreed upon by all oversight bodies), in which case the release can be postponed by additional 5 years (only once). Unredaction should be almost complete, except for information, that protects the agents identity.

Another problem that our current democracies have, is that they lack advantages of authoritarian system of rule. For these situations, I think it makes sense for there to be reinstated position of dictator. This power is to be shared by 2 publicly elected consuls at the same time (if they cant agree on something, there is a 5 consul vote), with which they are allowed to behave without need of parliamentary and senate approval, when it comes to achieving dictatorship goal (again stoppable by justice consul, petition etc. for being unconstitutional) specified in dictatorship law approved by the 60% of fully filled parliament, 60% of fully filled senate and 4/5 consuls. This law should explain in advance what powers it will use to achieve the goal and new additional powers needed are to be again voted on. Also, if the power is needed for period longer than 1 year, it has to be reapproved the year after to continue.

Another problem of our current democracies is centralization of money and power on state level. It is not needed and in my opinion actually hurts the efficiency of the state as well as it prones to corruption. That's why I believe that it is best, if many taxes that the population decides it wants to have (explained later) are decided and paid regionally except for some mandated state ones like food or police (it also creates healthy competition and variety), but even some of those would be often decided and paid regionally as explained below.

To be able to explain properly, let's look at how the taxes (another huge problem of our current democracies) are to work, as the way they currently do, needs to be completely reimagined on the principle "taxation with EXACT representation". In my system I only have 2 types of real taxes (ignoring now the “resourcetax” and “cleaning tax“, which in reality aren't taxes [similarly to drinking water not being a chore but a necessity for survival], as they are only mechanisms not to waste minerals and to pay for services to stop poluting and clean up our earth, explained later in the article, and also ignoring the foreign trade “tax”, which in reality is a just a mechanism that protects the country and its people from being exploited and sucking out their capital out of the country). Commercial transaction tax and personal wealth tax and both of them are pretty simple.

Commercial transaction tax is exactly what it sounds like. Every commercial transaction (whether it is a sale of a car, candy in a store or a loan from a bank) is to have a 1-3% tax attached to it. If you look at the amount of transactions in our current economies, you will find out that often much less than a 1% tax on each transaction would be enough to cover all of our current government budgets. However in my system, I have tremendously changed, how the banking world works and therefore I expect, with quite high probability, much lower volume of transactions overall (especially the ones between the financial institutions) and therefore I see the number between 1-3% as way more realistic, considering also that there are more social net programs (even thought I would argue that I set them up in a very effective way, so they will be cheaper than the current ones, and sometimes these programs are even partly or in full funding themselves). This would mean that realistically every employee, as well as any business, would have an effective tax of around 1,99-5,91% on all of their income no matter what (as you effectivelly pay the tax twice, once you are getting the salary/turnover and once you are paying for the goods and services). This money then goes into a pool of taxes that is being redistributed, based on the decisions of the population as explained later. Universal basic income transfers from state to citizens don't make sense for me to be taxed as it is only additional work.

Second tax that I setted up in this system is a personal wealth tax that is based on the concept of “3” mentioned a lot in this article. So first let's explain how I came up with it. On first level, personally I see private ownership as a complete baseline to any free society, which is a society I want to build. On the second level, I believe that taxing productive wealth of companies is terrible for their development and growth, which you actually want to protect, if you want to have overall wealthy society (unless they become oligopolies and monopolies). On the third level, I also believe that uncontrolled generational wealth accumulation will eventually always suck out any society dry, as even with way below average skill sets, wealth will create more wealth, which needs to come from somewhere and it will always come from the rest of the society, that is getting poorer on the back of the few with amassed generational wealth. Because of this, in my system, I have decided to create a private ownership that eliminates grand generational wealth accumulation, while leaving enough space for companies not to be burdened with irrational wealth tax. This is done in two steps. First one is the above “3“ personal wealth tax and the second one is focused on inheritence rules and especially on inheritence rules of companies. It is also very likely that this tax will not actually be largely needed (if at all) from money stand point for classic maintenance costs of the state (like police, teacher, politician salaries and so on), as the transactional tax will be enough to cover all of these costs, and therefore the state will accumulate large sums of money from this tax, that will have no special use. If I am correct and this happens, meaning that the overall tax pool is partly or largely not used, there is a fund to be created, fully owned by the citizens of the country and it is to be used primarily for new development projects that are to enrich the whole of society, as well as on other additional programs like start-up state support or fund for proper representation explained later in this article. Similarly to any other tax use, these programs and development projects are to be approved and even canceled by the population itself as explained later.

So what is the “3” personal wealth tax? It is actually quite simple. I believe that inside of each country that decides to use this system, there should be a conversation on a topic of what amount of personal wealth is enough to be satisfied with in terms of actual property for one person to hold without having to pay almost any (I think that even here there should be like a 0,5-1% yearly tax on the property above “1“ which is just 1/3 of the “3“, so almost everyone is participating in funding the society even from a wealth standpoint) tax on it. The way I see it personally, I don't really see any need for anyone to own more than 3 60th percentile cost (of the country of residence, so for the USA it would be median cost of houses in all its states) of fully furnished houses/larger appartements (especially if you consider that at some point, people usually end up living in couples, which makes it 6 houses per 1 couple) to house an averaged sized family (to me that means 2 adults plus 3 children), together with some additional value property in terms of a car and jewlery. Everything else in personal ownership (except for the companies, which I will explain in the paragraph below) above this “3” amount of ownership, is to be taxed at incredibly high rates of 50-90% yearly. This means that a billionaire can still buy a yacht, but he/she will have to pay its value in taxes every year (or at least its value over the “3“ mark, if they don't own any other property). And of course cash money also counts towards “3“.

So now let's have a look at how the “3” wealth tax affect companies, as anyone with a little bit of money smarts, would, after reading my previous paragraph, decide to hide all of their wealth in their companies. First of all, wealth of the company from my taxing perspective is pretty much anything that you can find in their assets sheet. Obviously it doesn't make sense to tax the company for factory machines, they use to create products, as this would make the companies uncompetetive against companies from countries that aren't using my system (which in my opinion would be a huge mistake, as I not only want to prove that the current economic system is complete trash even, from the capitalism framework of mind, but also because I believe it is best, if the new system is able to easily defeat the old system even in terms of economic competition, so if there are countries, who don't join the system, they will eventually do, because it is superior, just like the Soviet Union eventually fell and China changed their economic system, because some amount of capitalism is needed for any successful economy), as well as it would hinder the development and growth of the company substantially. Instead the focus should be on what i call “standing money property“, which is any property that is not directly used in creating final products of the company, that it sells. This includes company cars (unless you are a taxi service), real estate not used for manufacturing/offices, jewelry or rare minerals like gold, non controlling shares (50% still counts as controlling) of companies (except for special cases in which governments of other countries are involved in, due to projects huge strategic value – like raw material extraction or mini nuclear powerplants and), other shares of companies not related to the business of the company and pretty much any other form, that you can come up, that would be a way to hide property that would otherwise fall into the “3“ wealth tax. With companies cash doesn't count into “3” as long, as it is to some reasonable proportion of its overall value.

While still on the topic of taxes, it is important to talk about jewlery and physical art, as those are to technically fall under the “3“ wealth tax and they are often used to avoid taxes or to launder money (especially true with paintings). With jewelry I think that for tax purposes, it makes sense to me that it is to be counted based on the amount of the rare earth minerals value in the jewelry. When it comes to physical art made for decorative purposes (statues, paintings, busts and so on), those are to be completely removed from the “3“ taxation altogether, while having a maximum value (let's say f.e. 10.000 USD) under which they can be sold with cash and everything above that value can be bought only through wire transfers with proper anti money laundering and know your client checks and other rules. Same goes for purchases of jewelry (luxurious watches included).

Tax incentives, exemptions, reductions or tax breaks are to be forbidden in this system, mostly because I am certain that it creates unhealthy competition between different regions to lower their taxes, that in a long run only ends up hurting everyone else except for the companies, who are to receive these tax deductions, which in a long run actually hurts the companies as a whole as well.

So since, I already explained how both of these taxes work, once we collect this money, we have created a pool of money that is to be used. Now let's get to the taxation with EXACT representation part. Similarly to our current governments, I believe that it is needed for any government in my system to create and vote on an yearly state budget beforehand, based on which they are to divide the costs of all of the state programs (regional ones included) into different columns f.e.: Chambers of government deputies plus consuls and their assistants salaries, army maintenance and soldier salaries, army technology innovation and acquisition, farming costs, government clerks salaries and additional costs, healthcare costs (ideally again split into smth like medication subsidies, doctors and nurses salaries, new technology/machines acquisition costs etc.), education costs (again ideally more split), police salaries, building of houses costs, UBI costs, new savings into fund for cases of natural disasters and other emergencies and so on and so on, until every dollar spent by the government is accounted for in this detailed analysis of the state budget and each column is linked with the exact number of dollars these projects cost, as well as how much of the total tax pool these programs are taking (split into statewide costs as well as regional costs [if they are paid out regionally]). This way every citizen will first of all easily see how much of their taxes are actually paid out and for what, and secondly, this analysis tool (which should in my opinion be showcased at the main page of every governmental website) will be a good tracking device overtime to see which of these programs are getting more or less efficient, and the citizens, while comparing the quality of the services, will be able to make adjustements to these taxes during the voting period. How would we do that you ask? First of all, if a new tax that will eat out of the pool is passed, I believe that citizens should be able to vote on whether to keep it after the first 5 years of it being active (during one of the nationwide elections parliament or consuls in case of state taxes, or during nationawide or regional elections for regional taxes), with simple yes or no question and additional question if yes, whether to keep it as it is, decrease or increase its budget or whether to completely rewamp and the government has a legal obligation to adhere to the wishes of the population. When it comes to any older tax, it is possible to create a same public vote during any related elections based on a petition again signed by at least 0.5% of the population related to the tax. If the state collects way too much money from the transactional taxes, it is by law mandated to decrease them to the level, where they fit the pool's actual costs plus maximum of additional 5% for an unsuspected overhead, that is to be used for infrastructure fund if not used, and if used, the analysis is to be updated (which should be done whenever there is a change in the spending anyway).

Now let's look at the inheritance and how that works. As already said, here my goal is to mainly stop hoarding of generational wealth, that is a cancer on any society, eventually always leading to disaster. On the other hand, I also find it productive, useful and fair that if the owner of the large company (that they have been building big parts of their life) dies, that he is able to at least partly give parts of it to his children or anyone he sees fit through inheritence, who could best lead it in the future. To combine both of these contradictory views, it makes sense to me to find a compromise between them by limiting the inheritance of any company above a specific value/amount of workers to maximum of 25% shares of the company (if 2 people coown it 50/50, it would be 12,5% for each, if they both die at the same time or if only one dies, the company becomes 37,5% owned by the workers, who will vote for their representatives in the company organizational structure). These shares should be dividable by 2,5% each, so 10 in total, so there isn't stock market built into the system. The rest of the shares should become co-owned by the workers of the company, through changing the company into worker cooperative, where these shareholders, vote together with the workers, based on their value of shares, on decisions of the company, as well as their share profit of the company. Once the people, who inherited the parts of the company die, their shares go to the worker cooperative. Also whenever anyone who inherited these shares wants to sell them and anytime the person who buys them wants to sell them again, the worker cooperative has a priority in a possibility to acquire them. When it comes to inheritance of small business or person's property in “3“, inheritance should work as it works now but keep in mind that if your own “3“ is already filled, there will be a huge yearly tax on the inherited property unless you sell it (or your own property) and use the money elsewhere. Also, if a founder (or owner who brought the company to its large size) of a large company (that would count into earlier mentioned inheritance rules) sells his company or some of its shares to a different entity, after 30 years, they will transform in coworkers shares automatically.

By the way the stock market is to be banned. While there is some value in it, the negatives overwhelmingly outweigh the positives, and the positives of stock exchange (raising capital from public) can be achieved similarly with regular investor and sharing profit for lending in banks deals.

Since we are already on the topic of taxes, let's look at the earlier mentioned foreign trade “tax“, that can be by some considered a tax, that in my opinion should be set up worldwide, to stop the workers exploitation all around the world by straightening workers salaries all around the world, as well as to stop capital drain from the countries where services and products are being manufactured as well as being sold to (it's a mechanism that protects both ways). Currently, I will explain my older version of this mechanism, that I am still not completely sure on, as I am also working on a more efficient and productive version (iPhone notes “jak financne resit odliv kapitalu“ for the interested parties) of this mechanism, that needs some debugging still, but the main idea of the mechanism is the same, as the one I am gonna explain below. Before I start with the explanation, I would again like to explain on what ideals is this mechanism built. First of all, while I believe in some version of capitalism (I call it communalism [primarily because it triggers people that hate on communism without any real knowledge, or with their head in the sand, about our current system, that has little to do with capitalism, or communism for that matter, and because I sometimes enjoy triggering those types of people] but you can call it efficient socialism for all I care :D) for multiple very important reasons like private ownership, freedom, probably the best allocation of resources (apart from some exceptions where monopolies and oligopolies tend to build up or when it comes to non profitable externalities - but those can be also taken care of by capitalistic mechanisms, as I will show you multiple times later in this article) with healthy competition and at least in theory (sometimes in action as well) removing non efficient or subpar products away from the market by natural selection. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, capitalism in its raw form (or our current fascist corporatism version of it) almost never takes into account negative externalities, whenever the costs to solve them are too expensive to make profit out of. And when it gets really dark like in the US and EU currently, it often even amplifies these externalities on purpose, to make profit of them in a different way, that doesn't actually solve the issue. One of the most criminal externalities that our capitalism is a source off, is in my opinion, exploitation of workers, drainage of wealth from less developed countries, and when it becomes globalistic version of capitalism, we can see, that it can lead (mainly because of inability or purposeful intent of our politicians) into completely wrecking job markets and economies even in the developed countries, these companies originally came and made their money from. Stopping these 3 negative externalities from happening is the second ideal, I was focused on, when coming up with this trading mechanism. So let's get to it.

First lets look and the subsidiaries of international companies, manufacturing in a diffent country of our choice. When we look at them, we will quickly find out that these companies are created to obviously transfer profits made in the country of choice to the parents company and therefore also to the country of the parent's origin. While that is completely rational, as any businessmen want to capitalize on their investments, it is important to note that this automatically drains out the capital out of the country of choice. Some could disagree by saying that, if there was no investment from the businessmen, there would be no profit from such operations at all and therefore this profit would be non existent and therefore my argument is invalid. They could even go step further and say that thanks to the businessmen investment being there, they at least created new jobs and therefore created wealth for the community that would otherwise have nothing. While both of these arguments are theoretically sound, in reality they don't hold up, so let's dissect them. Firstly, lets completely ignore the fact that many of such subsidiaries were already huge corporations before they were bought up by the international mega corps, that became their parent companies (like what happened with ŠKODA and many other Czech companies after the Velvet revolution, which were sold for pennies, even if you consider their additional investments into the plants), as well as we are going to be ignoring parts of the profits that were made by the purchases of the products in the country of manufacturing that otherwise would not happen or would be much lower. Secondly, we will find out that the counter argument lies in the basic principle of any successful business, which unless the owner is content with what they already have, or is too busy to expand, businesses will always look for new ways to make either bigger profit on what they already do and if that is not possible, they will be looking for new pathways to make profit, which with any market being limited by its size means, that you have to expand into new markets, whether you like it or not, as there is only as much you can sell in your home market, and therefore also profit from, even if you become a monopoly there. So my counter argument would be that even if the labor wouldn't be cheap in other markets, the businesses would migrate their businesses elsewhere anyway, as being closer to new markets lowers their other expenses, apart from gaining other advantages, like combating potential future competitions, that could otherwise become too big and could eventually expand even into their home market and therefore could hinder their profits in the market, they already control or have a huge share in. Additionally, I would even argue that it is in the companies best interest that they migrate into new regions that are rich, as there, they can likely (given that their product is good) make much larger sales (and therefore also profit) in the long run than in a poor region. I would even go a step further and say that it would be best for solid companies with quality products, if all of the regions around the world were wealthy. And therefore it is in a long term interest of such companies to make the region they manufacture in wealthy, as that makes these markets interesting to them not because of the cheap labor (as it is now), but as a new potential market to make money on from sales, that will in a long term create much more wealth for everyone involved, the companies included. Even for a billionaire, there is a limited amount of cars that they will buy and the number will be for sure much lower than, if the billions currently in poverty, were raised out of it and had their own money to buy cars themselves. So now that we dismantled this old capitalist argument, lets look at the ways how to make these less developed (or developed but still comperatibly poor due to the capital drain) regions wealthier. Of course, we cannot expect the companies to go out and start paying people fair wages, especially in our current short sighted system, where the CEOs are by law required to maximize the profits for their shareholders, who want the return on their investments as fast as possible, apart from this strategy putting them in a big disadvantage comparably to their competition, so the change has to be structural.

As said, this is an original version of this mechanism, that I am currently updating and changing quite a bit, so it works even better (there is f.e. profit sharing even between the regions that trade with each other, inside of the state and so on) and is much less dependant on the state and instead most of the money goes straight to people, as I believe that is the best way to use such money, but thanks to it, it is quite simple. Any subsidiary, that isn't co-owned with at least 50% of shares owned by the citizen(s) (with the tax domecile inside the country) of the country of the mentioned subsidiary, and that wants to transfer any profits made by the subsidiary into their parent company with different tax domecile, has two options to choose from. Either they will take 50% of all of their profits they want to transfer upstream and give it out evenly to their employees (who are the citizens of the country or are long term residents in the country with the tax domecile there), who were the reason why this money was made in the first place, or they have an option of transferring all (100%) of their profits upstream but with a delay. This delay would be quite long, as first, they are to put all of this money into an infrastructure project (based on the government [66% would go to the regional – split between regions based on their population - projects and 34% would go to state projects] and citizens needs and government approval – I imagine there being multiple projects to fund, already prepared for companies to choose from, unless the government decides that they want to build something else with a priority), that will benefit the society in the country of the subsidiary as a whole and they are to collect their original profits, once these infrastructure projects make their money back (foreign companies pretty much have to “launder“ their money once, before they can collect it). These projects can be wide ranging. Housing and other useful constructions like schools and hospitals, power plants, high speed railways, new roads, new mines and much more. There would be also many different ways on how to build these projects, as well as how to convert them into cash, that would always depend on the specific project. For example when it comes to building new housing, they would be able to choose from construction companies (that aren't financially connected to them) and are having market standard profit margin on the project or leave it up to the state to build the housing themselves (so pretty much using the same system that I will explain later on in the housing part of this article). When it comes to collection on their investment, parts of it could come quite fast from citizens buying up this property or slower through “rent” being paid out of the state pocket to the company that built the housing, until all of their profits are recollected, when the housing units will end up state property afterwards. When it comes to power plants, I can imagine that there can be often multiple companies co-funding the project at the same time. When it comes to faster build time of power plants (like gas f.e.), it makes sense to me that after it is being built, it would be leased to the state, that would pay out profits out of the electricity generation to the company until the construction costs are paid off, after which it would officially become the governments property. With the longer construction times like nuclear, I imagine that the state could pay off the power plant immediately, once it is finished (or the state could pool new money coming from the other companies once it is finished and with that it would pay it off to the original companies who funded its construction – so the state doesn't have to use its own money at all - and afterwards, they would start paying off the newly pooled companies from profits on the electricity). There is a lot of ways on how to play with specifics of such projects and I believe that the maximum of waiting time for recouping the companies profits should be around 10 years. Similarly as with the manufacturers, it would work with foreign subsidiaries or even foreign parent companies, who are just selling their products or services in the country of the subsidiary, with the difference, that in case that the distribution costs are very little or non existent due to it being f.e. online software/online ad space, and the company actually doesn't even have any or very little employees in the country of the sale, the profit is to be used specifically on the infrastructure projects. Of course there is another option open for them, which is to expand their investments in the country of the business and don't upstream the profits outside of the country at all. I believe that this system should be reciprocal between all of the countries, and to those who don't want to join should be hit with extremely high tariffs so it is obviously more beneficial for them to join the system.

And since we are still on the topic of “taxes“, lets also have a look at my earlier teased mechanism on how not to waste minerals and other even grown resources like wood, while also stopping the pollution of our planet, as these are other negative externalities, for which the current capitalist system has no answers, as can be seen by not only plastic pollution in our oceans, which this mechanism is also set up to clean up together with the rest out our planet. Also, the poisonous (poison definition: anything that is toxic to its user, close proximity surroundings or ecosystem as a whole; toxic definition: shortens or objectively worsens quality of life of life forms around them) materials that we are incapable of turning into non poisons, or are non poisonous but after processing them they leave poisonous residual material that we are unable to turn into non poison, are to be banned (except for studies and experiments), except for extreme exceptions like nuclear fuel (the only material that I have found to be the exception, but there might be others), that have no other real substitute, while being currently necessary for our society not to crumble and even those are to have special rules about their storage and so on (more details in my notes). This includes ban on plastic.

Alright, when creating this mechanism, my main ideals were quite simple, to use free market tools to solve the above mentioned issues and to make all of humanity, to pay for it, as we all were the culprits behind this mess. So how does it work? Again, it is actually quite simple and it is split into 2 “taxes”. Let's firstly look at the “cleaning tax”, which in reality is just forcing the companies and consumers pay for cleaning our streets based on how much products they use. For this tax to be fair and successful, it ought to be set worldwide (countries not cooperating are to be hit with exceptionally high tarrifs by all of the countries cooperating, out of which their part will be paid and eventually will lower their total production, and therefore their total trash generation will lower significantly, which will also help us in cleaning up), as having our planet clean is a worlwide challenge and our collective duty to our children and the rest of the inhabitants of our planet. This tax is to involve only companies manufacturing non consumable final products (while consumables don't count their packaging still does) that go into circulation (and it doesn't matter whether it is for commercial or personal use) or products used by the companies themselves without any additional buyer down the road (and in case they eventually end up selling it down the road anyway doesn't matter, as they already paid the tax once and the value of it is the same for both of these manufacturers). Before I explain how I would use this mechanism to clean up the planet and how would the transition to such system look like, let's first talk about how should the mechanism work in a situation once our planet is already cleaned up and this system is already working for a while. Also this accounts with there being already rules put in place, where all trash material is to be either recycled or used for different purposes. First of all, each company is to track how much material they are using in their products, plus how much of additional material is left unused due to it being unusable residual, and therefore it is exactly known how much of trash is and will eventually be created out of the company produce (easy to track by the amount of material they buy to make their manufacturing) and this is how much (based on the weight and the material type unless there is a specifity to the product, that makes it so, that it should be counted differently) is the company gonna prepay into a special account locked by the government (in case the company goes bankrupt, so the money dedicated to cleaning is left there to pay for the services), that will be used for paying different companies working in cleaning up the streets, collection, transportation, sorting out and preparation of garbage for additional processing (recycling explained right after) based on the total of garbage cleaned proportionally with how much of total weight of products did the company create compare to overall total of products created. This additional tax would obviously write itself into a final price of the product, so the consumers will be paying it just by purchasing the products, but it makes sense that both companies and consumers can partially retreive back this tax based on their behavior. Lets explain on 2 specific examples. First from the perspective of a company, where it has residual material, which is unusable and therefore would end up in trash, while also this company has old manufacturing machines that are being replaced for new ones and woud go into trash. Either the company can throw it out in the streets, they can put it in the trash container outside of their factory, or they can take the garbage and themselves drive it to a collection yard. In the first situation, the company will not have any of this tax returned to them. In the second situation, the company will have part of the tax, that represents cleaning up the streets, returned to them and in the situation number 3, the company might get almost the whole tax (related to the amount of trash they moved to collection yard) returned, depending also on how well seperated the trash (materials should be seperated by type so it is ready for recycling) is, apart from covering the costs of collection yards. Now let's look at this system from the perspective of a regular consumer. Here it heavily depends on the type of products, where I believe that some types of packaging (like glass containers) and other products should have a mandatory return system in place, where consumers can return them (usually in stores focusing on those types of products – so for example relevant also for old broken electronic devices) and receive large part of this tax returned to them, similarly to how it is done in many places with glass and plastic bottles currently. Then it makes sense to have different types of recycling trash containers present near areas where people live, for paper, cans and other easily seperetable small trash, which is to be collected by the garbage companies and based on the ammount of this seperated trash collected in those specific areas (which means that these trash trucks ought to have a scale measuring the weight of picked up trash, linking it to a gps location of where it was picked up) and people (only the ones with residence there) living there will have a small kickback (the trash not be divided based on the type will have zero kickback), in value of cleaning up streets and some seperation of trash, divided between them (proportionally to how many ppl are in their household and how many people live in that area overall), which will be given back to them once a year together with one of their UBI payments, or what I like a lot, is having a so called “trash card/profile“, where you are collecting money based on trash decisions you make in all situations (even when you return trash to collection yard and it is also connected to material kickback explained in the next paragraphs), which you can withdraw, whenever you want through bank transfer for example. And of course there is a third option, where these consumers can also drive the trash themselves to the collection yards, for which they would get the biggest return on this tax, especially relevant for large trash like old sofas and so on. When it comes to entities, who are to be cleaning up, collecting and sorting the trash out, it makes sense for me, that it is done by (once the system is already ongoing) private comapnies, who win municipal contracts, with there being some rules for minimum amount of companies in the state/region doing these services, so there is a competition between them, while also there being a possibility that if regional governments decide to do it themselves and have support of their constituents, they can do so. The amount of trash tax is decided by the average costs of all of these processes in the country for specific products related to the taxed product.

Once we have our trash picked up and sorted out, now it is our job to process the resources so they are usable again. For this purpose, so called “resource tax“ is to be established. And in principle, it is to work pretty much the same way as the trash tax with two major differences, that the companies, with every product they put on market, have to create a case study on how to recycle it, what is the cost, and how much of the total resources used can be recovered from recycling of the product. This case study is then to be verified in practice by at least 5 unrelated companies focusing on recycling and if they confirm that the product is recyclable (or usable for other use after some type of processing), the average costs and average recovered materials are to be noted, out of which the resource tax for the specific product is being counted from. If the material is non recoverable, usable for other purposes or only recoverable partly (up to 80-90%), the product is not to be able to join the market. For products that are recyclable, the companies doing the recycling can sell the material out of which part of the profits goes to the individuals or companies, who brought them them the products and part they can keep as their profit. Similarly to tax from trash, there is a kickback to consumers for resources in the product. Also, minimal warranty of products is to be at least 10 years old, so the focus is on creating reliable long term serving products.

When it comes to the cleaning our planet part, since after the revolution, the current money (except for cash), debts and loans will have almost surely 0 value, it makes sense to me, that all of the humanity will cooperate financially on cleaning it up. Therefore the tax to clean and recycle would be a double of what it is supposed to be based on the market prices until the planet is cleaned, where the half of the money will be used as mentioned above and the other half will be used for cleaning up our ecosystem.