What could our next civilization look like?
Our goal is to design a sustainable society that cultivates for human potential in its citizens. Sustainability and freedom are the two constraints in our project to structure human society as well as possible; they are the two things we want to maximize. We need to consider our needs and those of our descendants as well. We need to meet the needs of ~1/3 billion Americans, while restoring the habitability of the planet, and we should do so as efficiently as possible. The hundred-trillion-dollar question is: how do we do that?
“In this life there are two certainties: death and taxes.”
Unknown
Taxes
It is helpful to simplify our government into basic inputs and outputs. Money comes in through taxation and goes out in various expenditures. Using this elementary framework, we can comprehend how a superorganism as complicated and colossal as the US government works. The first question we must ask is related to tax inputs: how do we decide what our taxes are? The second question is equally simple: how do we spend the money our taxes generate? But while these are simple questions to ask, they are incredibly difficult to answer well. This essay attempts to structure basic responses to those two questions, providing us with an opening salvo, a rallying framework, which our foremost experts and the American People can refine and build around.
Our taxes should be based on three separate sources: land value tax, Pigouvian taxes, and organizational taxes. The first of these, a land value tax, is generally considered to be the best form of taxation as it taxes land according to its value, rather than the value of the property built on top of it. Whether a lot is used for growing corn or used to house the headquarters of a multinational corporation is irrelevant, the tax on that plot of land is the same regardless. This arrangement encourages the development of land, and far better economists have made strong cases for adopting this particular tax, economists like Henry George. Nations like Estonia, Denmark, and Taiwan have implemented various forms of land value taxes to great success, along with experiments in the USA. These implementations should be examined as case studies when developing our own system. A land value tax would be incredibly helpful in distributing investment according to population density and economic necessity, whereby population centers would optimize to build taller developments, and rural areas would bear much lower taxes. If we are to fully address the shortage of housing and the excess of hoarding, if we are to create territorial justice and house all our citizens, a land value tax must be implemented.
The second tax is applicable to major negative externalities, which are problems that people and organizations create but do not pay for. Pigouvian taxes are helpful because they enable a government to transfer the unseen costs of a particular good or service to the organization producing it. Higher cost for consumers results in less consumption of that thing. But simultaneously, taxing the problematic thing also raises tax revenue for the government. Countries around the world, Germany, Sweden, Canada, and the UK, have adopted this tax structure with great success. Putting these taxes on harmful products would be immensely beneficial to actually addressing the structural issues they cause, reducing their consumption and the eventual harm they inflict on the broader society. Since these costs will be borne by us all at some point in the future, shifting those costs to the organizations and consumers that create them is necessary to reduce those costs and ensure the responsible parties pay their fair share. It also ensures that taxation is justifiably in proportion to the harmful behavior an entity is exhibiting, so that the more one pollutes, the greater their tax burden. There are, of course, downsides to this form of taxation, with the calculation of these externalities and the producer-consumer burden allocation being primary ones, but they can be approximated. As this essay consistently argues, an imperfect solution is better than no solution.
The third tax is one imposed on all organizations. This form of taxation will be explored later in this manifesto, as it deals with ownership of organizations as well, but in a nutshell, we argue that the government should take 1/3 of an organization’s income. Other taxes, those on income, wealth, and other sources, will likely be necessary and appropriate for the functioning of a modern government, but they would be much lower than they currently are. This manifesto does not argue for higher taxes, it argues for better ones. But even if these two taxes are the best kind of taxes, it is unnecessary to assume they would be the only two forms of taxation. This essay aims to highlight two sources of taxation that would provide immediate and long-term benefits to our society, rather than dictate the entire tax policy of that government. My rudimentary understanding is that these two obscure taxes would be massively supported by economists, the only issue is that they are politically impossible because our legal and political systems are pay-to-play, and it is far cheaper to bribe your congressman than it is to change manufacturing processes. We have an unjust tax system that is exploited by our aristocrats and corporations and overburdens the rest of us, and it needs changing.
“The care of human life and happiness... is the only legitimate object of good government.”
Thomas Jefferson
Government
And having analyzed the inputs of this financial equation at a very basic level, we must turn to the second, much more exciting question: What do we do with all these trillions?
I believe that the best way to meet the needs of hundreds of millions of Americans is to organize our government into a series of ministries, each of which is tasked with meeting a particular need of our people. Rather than create three branches, this proposal seeks to create nearly twenty. These organizations would operate without a profit incentive and maximize economies of scale, offering us the goods and services necessary to meet our basic needs at the lowest possible cost. By structuring our government as a series of non-profit organizations, we should therefore increase the disposable income, free time, and energy of individual citizens, enabling us to live fuller, richer lives, creating societal stability, safety, and success. In other words, by reducing the cost of basic needs as much as possible, individual citizens would be able to meet their needs with the least effort and expense possible, maximizing their freedom. Individuals would still need to specialize, work, and spend responsibly, but the cost of living would be as low as possible. Many of the industries that supply us with the basic goods and services necessary to live, industries like clean water and electricity, operate on a monopolistic or oligopolistic market structure. These concentrated market structures ensure that corporations have low incentive to improve their product and high incentive to increase prices for consumers. By eliminating the profit motive for these industries, we improve the services they deliver. The goal is not big government or small government, the goal is lean government.
There is a clear logic to eliminating the profit incentive for our basic needs in order to allow for greater human freedom. If we adopt this blueprint, there will need to be many non-profit governmental organizations, covering physical and psychological needs like healthcare, internet access, justice, energy, food, etc. Rather than identify exactly how many branches we would need or what they would be, this essay aims to introduce the concept of government via democratically responsive Ministries. The idea of lifting up the executive branch so that various departments are equal, accountable directly to the American People, and work to guarantee the fundamental needs of all Americans are the salient points. A healthy tree does not have only three branches, it has many; so to should our government should distribute power and resources across more branches than it currently does.
Under this proposed structure, each Ministry would be headed by a minster. Like with any private corporation or public department, the head of this organization would have full authority and responsibility over the organization. This should not be a controversial idea, but it naturally raises the question of how these individuals would be selected. Currently, the upper echelons of corporations are largely selected by a board of directors, who act in the best interest of shareholders, while the heads of departments are appointed by the President, who, in theory, acts in the best interest of the American People. For both of these examples, a small, extremely well-informed entity makes decisions on the leadership of a large organization. And in virtually every organization even, there is a chief executive with full control over the mechanics and direction of the organization. It seems prudent to follow the logic we have seen work, but with a democratic twist.
One proposal is to have Ministry leaders elected by weighted votes every few years, staggering the terms so that the same day every year sees the election of a few ministers. Weighted votes are a way of incorporating democracy and balancing it with expertise. It seems reasonable that professionals and experts in an industry have greater influence in how that industry operates than the average citizen, who knows little or nothing about the laws and nuances of the field. A weighted voting system still allows the average, non-specialized citizen to have a hand in selecting their leaders, but ensures their vote is proportional to their knowledge and expertise. Under this system, a master economist would have, for example, five times the voting power of a regular citizen, who would have one vote. This weighted influence would improve the quality of electing our ministers and increase the incentive to specialize. This technocratic-democratic-meritocratic proposal would retain flexibility that allows citizens to advance themselves across multiple ministries, or to switch specializations later in their career, limited only by their self-discipline, intellectual capabilities, and ambition.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
Mark Twain
Legislature
Of all the claims and points made by this manifesto, perhaps the boldest is this: do we even need a legislature at all? Think about it: legislatures essentially allow for the constant reshaping of government via the passage of laws and budgets. When used appropriately, they enable the government to adapt continuously to the world around it. The issue, exemplified by our Congress and its single digit approval rating, is that legislatures can be used for inappropriate, undemocratic, illegitimate purposes. Gridlock, performative theatrics, partisan divide, and bureaucratic bloat are just some of the issues legislatures create in the long run. If we are establishing a government that is designed to meet our basic needs at the lowest possible cost, with Ministries controlled by ministers that are guided by experts and directly accountable to the people, the need for a legislature becomes far less clear. In theory, any additional laws, motions, and legal infrastructure created by any legislature would simply create bloat and inefficiencies.
That being said, if we deem a legislature necessary, this manifesto proposes a governance structure by county. This “King-of-the-County” system would task these leaders with sole responsibility the citizens that elect them, coordinating the distribution of Ministry resources and representing their constituents in legislative sessions. While our United States does containin 50 states, we are better described as a nation of 3,000+ counties. Our local identity is far more powerful and realer than our often-abstract national identity. The differences in opinions, politics, and culture are much greater between rural and urban counties than they are between the states themselves. If we divide the country up by county, there is no redrawing of political maps and no gerrymandering; laws become much more local and tailored to the community; and representation in the national legislature is much more responsive. A county-based chief executive-legislator hybrid eliminates gerrymandering, simplifies elections, and makes accountability local and personal.
If we are to have a legislature, and if it is to be county based, then this manifesto recommends electing one legislator per county and weighing their vote according to the population of their county. In other words, the representatives from New York, Harris, or Los Angeles Counties would carry immense influence in this legislature, in proportion to the number of American citizens living there. This immense influence would be counter-balanced, however, by the sheer number of rural counties that populate the nation. These rural counties, regardless of whether they are in Oregon, Texas, or Virginia, tend to maintain similar cultures and voting patterns, and as such would be able to counter the immense weight of urban delegates. Ultimately, this model aims to make citizenship the defining variable for our legislative power, making the most democratic system possible.
“A threefold cooperation is necessary: that of capital, of labor, and of the State.”
Pope Pius XI
Ownership
So far, all we have discussed is how to structure government as efficiently and effectively as possible, while only dipping a toe into the field of economics. This field is in large part about ownership. The far left argues that workers should have total control of the means of production, while the right argues that capitalists should have full say over the direction of their company. Rather than gravitate to either extreme, this manifesto instead proposes a trifecta split between capital, workers, and government.
Under this proposal, individuals would be able to form for-profit organizations. Given that people are far more sensitive to personal needs than altruistic ones, it is critical that individuals retain the ability to profit from their own work, as doing so allows us to harness the core driver of human behavior: self-interest. For example, if an entrepreneur dreamed of founding a restaurant they would be able to, and they would be able to profit from its success. However, this restaurant would be forced to compete on quality instead of price, as the government ministry for food would be able to offer meals at a lower price. In other words, the bottom four tiers of needs in Maslow’s hierarchy would be guaranteed at lowest cost by the state’s non-profit organizations, leaving for-profit organization created by self-actualized citizens to harness the innovation, initiative, and self-interest that is so critical to America’s technological and economic dominance.
While for-profit organizations would be encouraged, one initiative would be to require publicly traded organizations to split profits and board seats across capitalists, workers, and government equally. (It bears repeating that this split would only apply to large, publicly traded corporations, and not privately held ones.) This is the aforementioned organizational tax. Each of these three parties is necessary for the operation and success of any large organization. Capitalists provide the investment, workers provide the labor, and the government ensures there is a stable environment where complex production can take place. Given this division, it stands to reason that large, publicly traded companies divide their profits and decision making across these three groups. No modern economy can exist without all three parties being involved, so it seems prudent to ensure that all have an equal share in the profits and a say in how the organization functions. Adopting a three-way co-determination split would also bind the interests of all parties closer together as they all share in profits and decision making, further improving efficiency of the overall firm. The data show that co-determination improves productivity, worker compensation, and long-term decision making while reducing inequality. It must be noted, however, that the codetermination suggested here is largely more powerful than the codetermination that is currently practiced today in Scandinavia and Germany. Importantly, this split includes equity as well as board representation. This distribution trifecta, across both profits and ownership in large corporations, should propel us into new era of economic productivity. Thereby helping us all meet our needs as fully and efficiently as possible, and account for the needs of all stakeholders.
We do not have to rely on theory alone. We can examine the nations around the world to see what works best and what does not work at all. The nations of the world who most resemble this proposed system would be the social democracies of the Nordic nations (or perhaps Germany with regard to codetermination). These nations have managed to find a balance between socialism and capitalism, ensuring that the basic needs of their citizenry are met, while also enabling citizens to pursue their creative, individualistic pursuits. They have some of the least corrupt, most stable societies in the world. They are among the happiest and wealthiest societies in the world per capita. They are so successful because they have managed to find a balance between the two extremes of socialism and capitalism, a balance which we can improve if we dare to go beyond what other nations are doing.
It is also critical to also examine the Chinese economic miracle, which brought hundreds of millions of individuals out of poverty and created the world’s foremost industrial power in a matter of decades. Their remarkable success is a result of fusing key concepts of capitalism to a socialist model, of balancing between public and private power. The longer we ignore the benefits of balancing between these two extremes, clinging to the outdated, polarized ideologies of our past, the more stagnant and inefficient we become.
"The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home."
Confucius
Community
This sounds great, in theory, but how do we actually get those publicly produced goods and services to the average American?
As far as actually ensuring citizen’s access to the resources provided by these ministries, there are two conduits that we could use to amplify the efficiency of distribution: schools and religious centers. These two focal points, which exist in every community in the USA, would become the cornerstones of our civilization if we followed this blueprint. We could shift away from the unsustainable, toxic myth of individuality and begin meeting our need for community, thereby eradicating the epidemic of loneliness and creating a tighter, thicker social fabric. In other words, schools and religious institutions would become third places. Third places, areas apart from work and home where communities could congregate naturally, are virtually non-existent across much of America today, yet they are essential to meeting the need for community that we all have.
The double distribution proposition should provide many benefits. First, our education system is overdue for a full reset. The problems within our system of education are not the fault of the students, teachers, parents, or principals. As this essay consistently argues, these failures are a result of the systematic decay. Our solution must be systemic because that is the cale of our problem. Teachers are burning out, our rankings in international metrics are average, we over-emphasize on standardized testing, and our funding inequalities are just some of the many alarm bells warning that something is seriously wrong with our education system. And so far, we have only really discussed K-12 schools, and not the complexity, stress, and cost of higher learning institutions. This manifesto does not seek to lay down concrete commands regarding the education system, but it does seek to do three things: (1) put a spotlight on how badly our education system is, (2) move education to the center of our national identity, and (3) create awareness around the developmental implications of technology such as smart phones and AI.
To speak to this third point, beyond the failures of the existing education system itself the rise of smart-phones and social media is raising uncomfortable questions about our children’s ability to integrate into and optimally benefit their communities. Depression and anxiety are skyrocketing, with almost half of all college students experiencing depression for example (the work of Jonathan Haidt is very relevant here). Furthermore, free, publicly accessible AI can now be used to do most of a student’s homework and a majority of their critical thinking. The brain is like any other muscle in our body, it needs to be challenged and exercised in order to develop. AI is a helpful tool, but it is very easily abused. As technological development accelerates, the influence it has on our children and their education will only become more pronounced.
Education may be the single biggest determinant of the positive possibilities open to an individual, and as a result, a core limitation of that individual’s freedom. It is through education, whether in academia or in the trades, white collar or blue collar, that an individual is able to specialize effectively, providing value to their community and earning enough to live full lives. The positive relationship between education, employment, and freedom is essential to the development of healthy, complex societies, but in the US today, all three seem to be on the decline.
The second pillar in our metaphorical mansion would be religious centers. This would allow religious institutions to better fulfill their divine mandate, which largely boils down to helping the needy as much as possible. The Founding Fathers ensured that there would be a separation of church and state when creating our Constitution, and while their decision to separate the two was prudent, we cannot simply ignore religion when designing our government. I cannot think of another institution that is such a core part of so many American lives. By establishing religious centers as community centers for distributing basic resources like food and healthcare, we would be able to incorporate these places into our society in a cooperative yet secular way. The organizations that provide public services would still retain full independence, but they would be conveniently located next to other services around a central religious institution, creating a natural hub of community. While religious leaders would have no special input into the mechanics and operations of our government branches, their centers of worship would be a core part of our American civilization.
One other benefit of structuring our society around these twin pillars is that doing so would naturally lead to densification of communities. Especially when combined with the land value tax, this densification would allow for the gradual, seemingly optimal, reconstruction of our civilization. Rural communities would have focal points they could go to in order to receive essential services, services which are scarce in their areas, like chronic illness healthcare. On the urban side, communities would see a much more efficient development of public transit, enabling the logistics of city living to be much smoother, and less auto-obsessed. The walkable city, where citizens can reach every resource they need by walking less than 15 minutes, must be adopted in order to improve the mental and physical health of the American People. This manifesto does not seek to build a nation of megalopolises, but instead one of strong towns and prosperous communities.
But of all the pros to this proposal, the foremost benefit of establishing these two centers for our communities is to reunite the fragmented American People together into natural, local tribes, where all citizens are welcome and our social integrity can be recultivated.
“The real problem of humanity is the following: we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology.”
Edward O. Wilson
Immigration
In pursuit of the goal to revitalize small-town communities around the nation, and in pursuit of enrichening the lives of individual citizens in them, this manifesto seeks to put forth the concept of transplants. The idea is simple: what if we transplanted skilled, hardworking immigrants directly to the dying communities around the country? What if made immigration hyper-local, so that the individuals of a community would be able to select exactly who to welcome into those communities, and thereby able to account for the character and skillset of those immigrants? And what if these immigrants, like organ transplants that restore the health of a dying individual, would commit to long term residence and integration into that community? What if we created a new wave of surgically precise settlers, building on our identity as a nation of immigrants, while adapting to the realities of the modern age and the preferences of local communities?
The key to this proposal, like with much of this movement and manifesto, is the ability to provide choices for the American People, to put power over their own lives into their own hands. If a locality does not want any immigrants from the Middle East, or India, or Latin America, or Africa, they would be able to discriminate against immigrants from those areas. If they want no immigrants at all, they would be able to ensure that none came. These communities would, however, have to watch as other communities around them, those that did open their doors to individuals willing to work hard, act ethically, and contribute valuable skillsets, prospered. If a community wants to choose xenophobia and isolationism, they would be empowered to do so, but if they want to choose inclusion and diversity, if they want to choose more prosperous communities and richer lives, they could welcome these transplants. They could choose to let in sushi chefs, farm hands, and senior care nurses depending on what they wanted and needed.
Immigrants ultimately drive economies forward because humans are the root of all economic productivity, and immigrants are people. The key to a successful immigration policy is the implicit agreement to assimilate, to adopt the norms and customs of the hosting community. While transplants will never adopt all of the local norms and customs, they would adopt many of them because of their need for social acceptance. It is this mixture, the ability to take foreign customs and blend them together with local ones that would enrich the lives of our citizens in impoverished towns around the nation. This proposal is a way to revitalize the small-town communities that have fallen on such hard times and a way to improve the lives of individuals in those communities.
Obviously the specifics of such a policy would need to be streamlined, debated, and continuously studied, but with modern technology, that is possible. Besides being hyper-local, this manifesto suggests that transplant immigrants have a few other specific features.
(1) They would commit to living in their communities for 25 years before receiving their full citizenship, causing them to put down deep roots and cultivate meaningful relationships.
(2) They would require a sponsorship from a citizen in that community, someone who and helps them integrate and is reputationally responsible for their behavior.
(3) They would apply to the local community’s digital portal directly, allowing the community to discuss all facets of an application.
(4) In case of a felony conviction, the community would hold a vote to exile the immigrant back to where they came from.
These four governing constraints are key in ensuring that this immigration pathway is controlled completely by the individuals in the community, giving them the freedom to welcome new neighbors or close it completely, and incentivizing the integration and upstanding of these transplants.
Technology
We must consider what technology to incorporate into our government, as modern technology influences our society and our lives enormously. At a basic level, there are four links to techno-governance: digital portals, social media, big data, and AI. As repeatedly stated, what these become and how they are structured depends on the knowledge, creativity, and wisdom of experts with far more experience in human-technology interfaces, as well as the aggregate will of the American People. With that caveat, we can lay down some initial ground rules to focus our debates.
First, we must look at other nations around the world and evaluate the applications and websites they have developed, using them as inspiration for our own. One particular example is Estonia and their only-once principle. They have developed a centralized, sophisticated digital government website, whereby citizens can access hundreds of services from a single portal. India, Singapore, and others should also be evaluated as case studies of successful developments of digital governance. In the age of data, information, and connectivity, we must utilize and structure our nation’s digital resources in a way that maximizes the benefits they can provide. Just imagine how much money and stress you would save if we had a simple, free tax filing system – and that is just one of hundreds of potential benefits a centralized digital portal would create. (This system, of course, is impossible in our current society because of political bribery).
Social media, our second link, is a technology that has brought our nation closer together, and paradoxically, farther apart. We know that our social media platforms are tearing our nation apart. Industry insiders have repeatedly come out and stated that these platforms are designed to addict us, which they do by showing us outrage inducing content that increases political polarization. We know bad actors are using these platforms to silently shift public opinion for the worse. But worst of all, there is no real discussion of meaningful regulation or oversight of big tech, because they are the wealthiest, most powerful corporations on the planet and they can fund legions of lobbyists. Social media is forcing us further and further apart and there seems to be no way to stop it from continuing to do so.
In order to actually take advantage of the benefits of social media, while minimizing the harm it causes our citizenry, the state must develop its own social media platform. This is discussed further in the upcoming section. There are two main points which would differentiate this platform. First, that participation would be entirely voluntary; and second, that citizens would need to register with a valid form of identification. These two rules are designed to ensure that the platform remains free of bad actors and ensures that citizens maintain the ability to opt out of participation entirely. A publicly owned social media platform, one which transparently created and allows its users direct control over the generative algorithms, would be a massive stride in reducing the toxic effects social media is having on our society.
With the aid of this state-sanctioned social media platform, we must also look at big data. As things stand now, our government’s digital interface is extremely siloed and inefficient, and so the wisdom and insights we can derive from that data are greatly reduced. Pooling and harvesting our data under public, responsible stewardship would provide immense benefits to our civilization as far as the efficiency and effectiveness of meeting our needs. The benefits we would derive from pooling our healthcare data alone would lead to massive leaps in understanding, quality, accuracy, and timeliness of medical treatments. Big data analysis and state-led social media would synergize to create enormous benefits for our society.
AI is the final point in this quad of technologies that we must incorporate intelligently. AI, especially agent AI, has the capacity to streamline the lives and improve the communities of so many of our citizens by so much. Think of it: what if your smartwatch could detect if your father was having a heart attack and use government-run AI to automatically call an ambulance for him? What if an app on your phone could detect when an abusive drunk started physically assaulting their child, record the abuse, and transmit it to the police? These are just two of a seemingly infinite number of potential uses of AI in government. In order to optimize the use of these AIs we must connect experts and communities together so they can work together to develop the systems and guidelines for this revolutionary technology. There are enormous risks with AI if it is managed incorrectly and these risks are currently being maximized. A potential mitigation of these risks is discussed in the final section of this manifesto.
Technology has become a defining part of our society, and if we are to design an optimal government, we must ensure that we incorporate our technology in a way that benefits our citizenry to the fullest. We must seize the initiative to move this conversation on data, privacy, and digital rights to the forefront of the nation’s attention, working together to create policy that benefits the American People, creating checks and guardrails against the enormous power of these irresponsible, data hungry institutions.
“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
Blaise Pascal
Special Projects
Climate collapse, corrupted institutions, reckless technological development, geopolitical uncertainties, and failing public trust all threaten our Union. Crises of this scale must be met with proportional responses. Given this necessity, this manifesto proposes a series of bold initiatives, each of which is like a Manhattan and Apollo project. These Special Projects are designed to address matters of national security and bring the colossal capabilities of the federal government to bear on objectives of existential importance. Each project is named after a key city in our republic, and each is the founding responsibility of one or more of our Ministries. Together, these projects provide us a path from looming catastrophe to lasting victory.
The W.D.C. Project
As the founding responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, the nation shall create a National Commission for Truth, Justice, and Accountability. The Commission will investigate all three branches of the federal government and all major organizations around the nation to uncover egregious abuses of public trust and democratic sabotage by institutions of power; with a timeframe stretching back 10 years. The Commission will uphold due process, prosecute individuals whose systemic crimes are proven with intent and impact. The goal is to leave no stone unturned, to leave no institutional crime undiscovered, and to ensure no career criminal escapes justice. The Commission will focus on four categories of systemic crimes:
(1) Ecocide and environmental sabotage – willful destruction of ecosystems, unchecked environmental pollution, and obstruction of climate justice
(2) Mass misinformation campaigns – deliberate efforts to mislead the public on matters of health, elections, war, or the environment
(3) Subversion of democracy – attempts to corrupt elections, obstruct peaceful transfers of power, or undermine the Constitutional order
(4) Institutional cover-ups of abuse – recurring patterns in which powerful organizations hid wrongdoing or silenced victims, most grievously seen in the chronic concealment of sexual crimes against children and minors.
Just as the Nuremburg Trails confronted the crimes of the state and its agents, so too must we confront the crimes that led to the gradual deterioration of our civilization. The W.D.C. Project is not intended to be an act of vengeance, but one of justice. Because of this intent, the Commission will grant amnesty or greatly reduced sentences to whistleblowers who disclose truth before investigations conclude. This Commission is a necessary reckoning to restore trust in each other, heal cultural wounds, and ensure that no person or institution stands above the law. All findings and hearings will be public, archived, and broadcast to ensure transparency and civic education, to ensure that our institutions of power never engage in such grave crimes again.
The Boston Project
As the founding responsibility of the Ministry of Information, the Boston Project will build a public, transparent, non-profit social media platform. This digital commons is intended to restore trust, communication, and structured debate to our shared civic life. For too long, the systems we rely on to interact with each other have been dominated by for-profit corporations that harvest data, manipulate attention, and amplify division to the detriment of us all. The Boston Project will create a public alternative to these predatory social media platforms, one that is open-source, ad-free, accessible to all citizens, and governed under democratic oversight. The platform will guarantee:
(1) Voluntary Participation – be able to opt out of the platform entirely.
(2) Verified Identification – must register with the platform using government issued identification before contributing.
(3) Data Sovereignty – full control over personal information.
(4) Algorithmic Transparency – the ability to view, audit, and adjust how content is presented.
(5) Democratic Participation – verified public forums for petitions, debates, and constitutional review.
(6) Digital Integrity – strict protections against manipulation, deepfakes, and coordinated disinformation campaigns.
The credibility and transparency of this Project will make it a cornerstone of democratic dialogue, both between citizens themselves as well as between citizens and their government. The Boston Project ensures that in the information age, truth and trust are not commodities to be sold, but rights to be safeguarded. Just as Boston once was the cradle of American liberty, this project will be the cradle of a new digital republic.
The Arlington Project
As a shared responsibility of the Ministries of Defense, Governance, and Foreign Affairs, the Arlington Project will assemble our nation’s existing alliances into a single defensive federation that protects the freedom and democracy of all members. This defense pact shall be known as the Freederation. The Ministry of Defense shall design the architecture of interoperability, pooled logistics, and shared command. The Ministry of Governance shall enshrine the constitutional guardrails: civilian control, transparency, phased ratification, and the legal protections of sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will build and sustain the coalition of free nations, ensuring the federation grows through consent, trust, and shared purpose. Together, these Ministries will build a federation that transforms fragmented treaties into a common shield, ensuring the hard-won peace and the sacrifices of so many citizens is not lost, but renewed for generations to come.
The S.F. Project
Humanity stands on the brink of creating artificial superintelligence, a technology which will radically reshape our way of life. At present, this frontier is dominated by for-profit corporations locked in a reckless race for dominance, incentivizing speed over safety. Left unchecked, this race could create not a tool of progress, but a force of ruin. As the founding responsibility of the Ministry of Science, the S.F. Project calls for a single collaborative movement between the major technology firms, our government, and ideally, the friendly nations of the world to develop artificial superintelligence under strict public oversight. We are going to create what amounts to a digital god, and so we must take every precaution to ensure that it is a prudent, benevolent one. After all, the race to create a digital god runs the risk of delivering a devil. The San Francisco Project ensures that the most powerful technology in history is guided by wisdom, safety, and ethics, and reckless, unchecked greed.
The Honolulu Project
Named after one of our many coastal cities under threat from rising sea levels, and as the founding responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment, this project calls for an international alliance that protects the habitability of our planet. It shall examine three separate fields of study:
(1) Mitigation –accelerating the end of fossil fuels and driving investment into clean energy, carbon capture, and regenerative agriculture.
(2) Adaptation – safeguarding vulnerable communities through resilient infrastructure, coastal defense, and disaster preparation.
(3) Restoration – repairing ecosystems, preserving biodiversity, and rebalancing Earth’s climate systems.
The Honolulu Project recognizes that climate change is the defining challenge of our century, a threat that transcends borders and ideologies, and that a concerted, cooperative, international effort must be established to meet that threat.
The Houston Project. Our current energy system, built for short-term profit, has destabilized the planet we are existentially dependent on. Fusion offers a system built for long-term human survival, and it must be treated as a critical national priority. While it may not deliver immediate results, the long-term benefits are profound: clean, abundant, and virtually limitless power for generations to come. Fusion is not simply an energy breakthrough, it is a civilizational turning point which promises to immensely strengthen national security. As the founding responsibility of the Ministry of Energy, the Houston Project will coordinate the pursuit of safe, scalable fusion energy. This effort will be pursued as a public good, with patents and designs placed in the public domain to ensure universal access and a lasting commitment to never weaponize fusion power.
These Special Projects are unapologetically ambitious because our history proves that we are capable of doing what most believe to be impossible. Together these Projects would mobilize our ingenuity, initiative, and imagination to create a civilization fit for the new millennium. It is up to every American, living or not, to look beyond what is probable, beyond what is thought possible, and pursue the sublime. United indivisibly by these goals, we can build a social order, a way of life, that is worthy of our infinite potential.
Conclusion
At the heart of this sprawling manifesto lies a simple truth: we can do better. Part of what separates us from every other known species is our capacity for collaboration. We were born into a failing society, but we can use these unique capabilities to make a better one. This manifesto is not an ultimatum or a proclamation, it is an invitation to collaborate on a proposal that greatly affects all of us. We must acknowledge hard, ugly truths about our nation before they finish destroying us; because only then can we use those truths to right our wrongs and save ourselves. We are at an inflection point in this nation’s history, one where we either adapt and begin the trek up the mountaintop, or become trapped in a dark, despairing abyss; and as far as I can see, nobody else is actually proposing a path out of the abyss we are in. We must remember what made our ancestors extraordinary: the courage to say no to tyranny and terror, and yes to something far greater and more noble. It is up to each of us to follow their example, to change the course of human history for the best, and to create the greatest civilization known to man.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt