NOTE: I apologize for the poor quality of this journal entry. I threw it together at “the speed of thought” meaning that it is largely “thinking aloud” and thus not necessarily confined by proper style.

The ideal government/social system of the future would be a libertarian, democratic council based government that would ban the function of money and markets (but not non-exploitative private property) in the name of it [markets and money] being an infringement on the rights and equality of people (see “The Moneyless Economy”). It would only enforce criminal justice when one person or persons infringes on the rights of others (including of shared resources). Although it would provide some services when necessary, it would mostly rely on NCSOs and non-capitalist contributors to provide goods and services. This overcomes the major drawbacks of state Communist collectivist approaches such as the Soviet Union, which largely became a state corporatist and collectivist/free market hybrid approaches such as China, which largely became a corporate socialist state. By strictly eliminating money, this ideal form of government also eliminates any chance of regression to capitalism or state corporatism.
To eliminate confounds for the time being, I will assume for this model that the People of all the nations of the world will have spoken democratically and elected to unify in a fashion respecting each others’ rights. I will address the feasibility of this unification in another essay.
Once the nations have elected to unify, democratic, immediately recallable councils should be elected every two years for each nation. A similar council will be elected on an international basis. The People shall have the power at all times and may recall or reverse any decision of the councils by a popular vote. There is a problem with this “absolute democracy,” however. What if a popular decision affects a minority in an ethically adverse way? For instance, what if a majority group elected to pursue an ethnic cleansing action against a minority ethic group? What if a majority felt that an absolute dictator must be elected? Surely there must be some sort of mechanism to stop such popular but unwise or unethical decisions. One way might be to remove the system of popular voting on Council issues and instead let the Councils make the decisions. The People would have a voice by electing the council members and/or recalling them. The councils could be governed by a strict set of ethical and operational standards. But by doing this, the People’s power might be diminished and the councils might ascend to a higher power status, much like modern government, in which the concerns of the People are not given much consideration. The councils might even see fit to overturn the recall and popular vote for their seats in the “best interests” of security…What solution do you propose? What “middle road,” if any, is there between absolute democracy and protection of minority voices?