In the area of Ethics and Morals, it is not logical to assert that when folks form a Group, that the Group somehow is endowed with more than the Rights of its constituent members. For example, if no Individual has the Right to murder, enslave, or rob another Individual, then an Association of Individuals – a Group – likewise has no Right to murder, enslave, or rob. But what happens is that when a Group gets large enough, it seems to miraculously take on a life of its own. The People are sold the notion that their Group is now senior to them, and any of the other Individuals who constitute it. Then the folks who run the Group arrogate to themselves Rights that have no basis in fact. Outrages are always explained away as necessary for the good of all – “For the Fatherland,” “For the Homeland,” “For National Security,” these are the excuses and explanations that are offered up to explain unethical and immoral behavior.

If the above is true, then once again – the challenge would seem to be, how a People can organize themselves without the likelihood that they will one day be at the wrong end of the bayonet’s they themselves purchased. (“We don’t torture people!” Right! Just don’t forget to read the fine print!)

For my purposes, I have chosen to call the Individual a Sovereign Individual (or SI for short). The concept of his inalienable Sovereignty is critical to emphasize, because it is the foundation of all that follows. Inalienable Sovereignty means that it is impossible for an Individual to ever not be in charge of himself. He is always at Cause over himself and always Responsible for himself. He appears to be the Effect of others only because he chooses to be Effect. In all his Associations, he is the Creator of the Association in concert with the others with whom he chooses to associate.

Take for example two Kings, each indisputably a Sovereign, who choose to play a Game of badminton. Although each has agreed to be the Effect of the Rules of the Game, neither looses his Sovereignty when the Game begins. To play that Game, they must accede to that Game’s Rules, but neither is forced to play, each voluntarily chooses to be the Effect of the Rules. And each, without so much as a by-your-leave can quit the Game at any time, his Sovereignty intact.

If the two Kings do not allow themselves to be the Effect of the Rules, then they will not play by those Rules, and by definition are not playing that Game – they may be playing some other, unnamed Game, but it won’t be badminton. To play badminton, they have to agree to be limited – to be the Effect of the Rules of badminton.

I reject the Statist definition of the Individual – “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole. . . that above all, the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. . . we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.” - Adolph Hitler. (We all know where that definition gets us.)

Most folks live in Association with other folks. They align their actions with those other folks to accomplish their agreed upon Goals. The great bulk of Sovereign Individuals do not engage in activities that harm others – it is Human Nature to respect the Life, Liberty, and Property of one’s fellows. Of course there are those whom most folks see as Criminals because they tend towards the murdering, enslaving, and robbing of others. The trick is to recognize such Criminals, to disAssociate from them, and to not leave governmental Structures lying around that a Criminal can usurp.

One of the biggest problems of Majority Rule is that when the Group reaches a certain size, it becomes impractical to get everyone together in the same room to discuss and vote on some proposal. So, I decided to limit the size of any one Group to eight. Eight is large enough that it is more than just a few friends getting together, and it is too small to get out of hand. It is easy for folks to keep track of seven other people.

I make the assumption that one’s life is improved by the Realization of that which is in his Interest, and that a SI (Sovereign Individual) working alone towards that Realization is at a disadvantage relative to what he could realize through his Association and coordination with others – the more the merrier. The concept of expansion of an Individual’s Association beyond seven other people in Multilevel Governance (MLG) is both arithmetic and geometric in Structure. First, arithmetically, he may align himself with as many other Groups as he wishes, and with as many other Sovereign Individuals as he pleases. By the Rules of MLG, all these Associations are entered into freely, and one is equally free to disAssociate from any Association at any time, for any reason. No Association of less than eight is deemed a Group, and no Group is greater in number than eight.

Now that I have insisted that every Group is limited to eight members, I will back off of that requirement on the 1st Level only. On the 1st Level there must be a minimum of 8, but no maximum is set as a limit. There are probably many instances where there are Groups in place that would be interested in the theory of MLG, but would see no reason to limit their current Group’s size. But on the 2nd and every succeeding Level, 8 is the Group size. The purpose of limiting the size of the Groups at all is so that the number won’t be too large for any one SI to feel he personally has critical input to his Representative. And of course, the size of the 1st Level Group will be self regulating – if it seems too large to any SI, he can just disAssociate from it.

Each Representative takes the lower Group’s Interests to the higher Group. If ever a Representative ceases to adequately represent the Interests of his Group, the other seven members can elect another from their Group to represent them.

Power always flows up, never down. A Group’s Representative serves at the pleasure of his or her lower Group, and not a minute longer. There are no guaranteed terms in office. If the SI’s in a 5th Level Group enjoy their exalted position, they must keep each Level below happy with their performance. In the 5th Level, a SI is responsible with his or her seven mates for 32,768 SI’s, but if he or she falls out of favor with their seven mates on any lower Level, he or she is recalled as their Representative. In this example, if a Representative were recalled as the Representative for the 1st Level, he or she looses all their positions as member in, and as Representative for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Levels (any cessation of Representative status at any Level, terminates membership in any higher Group.) This is not to say that they are taken out and shot, they just continue life in that 1st Level Group. (Or s/he can take their marbles and go home – just like the kings above, their Sovereignty is in tact.) The Group that recalls its Representative just elects another, and life goes on.

So as to minimize the possibility that a higher Group might attempt to intimidate a lower Group, a lower Group has access to all meetings of the higher Group, but a higher Group has no right of access to the affairs of the lower Group (except to the extent that a lower Group’s Representative wishes to disclose information).

Each 1st Level MLG Group creates a platform with a trap door on which to elevate one of its SI’s to represent it in the 2nd Level. Similarly, the 2nd Level Group of eight elevates one of its members to represent it at the 3rd Level, and the 3rd Group of eight elevates one of its members to the 4th Level, and then eight to form the 5th Level, and so on up to the 9th Level. At each elevation there are only seven SI’s supporting one as their Representative. At any time any Group can open their trap door and replace their Representative. It is a very strong, very personal, yet very fluid Structure. The folks carrying the Structure can efficiently contact the highest Levels through their Representatives. If they feel they are being required to carry the Structure somewhere they don’t want to go, they can instruct their Representative to change direction to align with their Interests. If that fails, they always have the freedom to disAssociate from the offending Group. Both SI’s and Groups have the Right to disAssociate whenever they please.

Compare that vehicle with some traditional models. In a Monarchy all the 40,000,000 are supporting one – and there is no trap door! There is an impenetrable ceiling between the Monarch and those whom s/he rules. The accident of birth generally determines who gets to be the next Monarch. Rule by the Peoples’ Committee tends to spread the centralization of Power somewhat, but the average SI has little input unless s/he can rise in the ranks. Good-old-boy politics generally determines who gets to rise to the levels of Power – and no trap doors there either.

Democratic Republics tend to spread the Power around a little bit more, but the results can be the same when things go wrong, e.g. Hitler. They have Constitutions which folks hammer out for their own purposes. Each Representative can represent thousands if not millions of SI’s. One solitary SI can feel totally cut off from having any influence on his Representatives. There are trap doors here, but they have time locks on them, and it is often very difficult to replace a bad Leader. (The time locks are set for the term of office.)

Compare that example of free Association, with a parade of troops marching in unison on the parade ground. Every step of every soldier has been planned well before its execution. If one of the troops stumbles and trips in a gopher hole, the whole of the planned coordinated march is disrupted. The changes and planning needed to accommodate for an unexpected hole in the ground have to be made by the drum major, and orders given so that the march doesn’t turn into chaos. The traditional model prizes conformity and predictability. When adjustments are needed because of some unpredicted changes, the adjustments are not made at the point of disruption, but at some point far from the problem. Conformity of action requires a Chain of Command Structure, from the top to the bottom.

In essence the biggest difference between the two Structures is that the MLG is a bottom-up dynamic, and the traditional organizing force is a top-down dynamic. In MLG, Power is generated by the accumulation of similarity of Interest of the moment. The Quantity of Power accumulated at any given moment is in direct ratio to the sum of the SI’s interested at that moment. Traditionally, Power is initially accumulated in a similar fashion by Groups of SI’s with similar Interests, but then those points of accumulated Power tend to continue to accumulate Power by the fixed nature of the Structures of Organization utilized. When conditions change, these traditional Groups are slow to accommodate to those changes. Business as usual, trumps innovation because the Power needed to develop the innovation is withheld in the hands of SI’s who have a vested Interest in keeping that Power in their own hands.

What unfolds is a constant friction and battle within traditional Groups between past Interests and current Interests. It is Human Nature for a SI to want to choose that which makes his life easier. Individually determined Interest is the motivating force of all changes from the Present into the Future. That is just the way things are. It would be the height of conceit to suggest that that which is a native Quality of Man is wrong. I would be interested to hear of examples of folks deciding to change to worsen their personal conditions. If you are anywhere close to sane it just doesn’t work that way.

So King Petunia is likely to be reluctant to give up his exalted position. He’s probably a good guy at heart, so when he sends his ministers to the gallows for suggesting some reform, he will convince himself that he’s not a greedy tyrant, he just happens to know what is best for his kingdom. As a matter of fact, his people are lucky to have his guidance during this threat to National Security.

I don’t wish to second guess Human Nature. I just want to utilize the technology now available to maximize the realization of Man's current Interests. Generally speaking, Kings tend to like their positions of Power, and tend to act to maintain them to the detriment of their Group as a whole. In MLG, when there is a Flow of energy and motion, it reflects the current Interests of the SI’s individually and of their Group, or Groups. There is no throne to grab or hold on to, so there is little incentive to plot to grab or hold on to one.

Even the area where Government shines – that of killing huge numbers of folks in a very short time – War – can conceivably be handled better by MLG. Modern wars are transparently the elite jockeying for Power and money. There are relatively few bad guys who are the real instigators, and they are fairly obvious.

Can you imagine how powerful a MLG Group of 40 million would be if it needed to act to defend itself? A traditional Nation State would be naked before the Power of 40 million focused SI’s. We see the unorganized Power of the Internet today. In free societies the Internet is an annoying loose cannon to the Oligarchs who presume to know best; in un-free societies its Power is also recognized and therefore suppressed. Imagine even a small portion of the Internet organized along the lines of MLG – it would be an awesome force!

Let’s make a short list of those who need help: children, the mentally or physically handicapped, and the elderly. (There may be other unlisted categories.) Since no one has the Right to rob another, even for a good cause, there is no possibility of Forced Charity, i.e. redistribution of wealth. Disadvantaged folks will be taken care of according to the desires of Others who will themselves freely give of their Property to that end. Well-poisoners and other Criminals would find themselves pariahs at the fringes of society.

In a similar way under MLG, just as none are artificially elevated in their condition by edict, none will be suppressed in their pursuit of happiness by edict. The more Value others find in someone, the greater would be the number of Groups with whom s/he would associate, and the higher s/he would rise as a Representative to upper Levels. A SI could rapidly rise to a level of success commensurate with his or her Value to others. I foresee an extremely high level of communication amongst Groups, such that what is needed and wanted will be known in real time – a capable SI could know how s/he could best exchange with others, and be accordingly rewarded.

As more and more time is required to manage the Interests of various Groups at higher and higher Levels, it would make sense that Representatives would be compensated for their time and success in the Realization of the desires of their fellows. As with all other matters, compensation would be resolved within the Groups themselves. There are no senior entities to lay down salary guidelines.

There would be no reason for featherbedding – the keeping in place of unproductive jobs. Once a particular job no longer had a purpose in the forward movement of a Group, it would disappear. The MLG Structure would not promote other than what the SI’s of whatever Group desired at that moment. Of course there are no rules stating that a Group can’t reward someone for non-production, people can do what they want with what is theirs – it is just unlikely that folks will choose to do that.

Life is nothing if not Change. As SI's change in their Interests, so will their Associations change. The 1st Level Group flows data regarding the desired changes in Goals upwards to the 2nd Level, and on to whatever is the highest Level. The responsibility at the top Level is to correctly identify what is wanted and needed, and then from its exalted position, and with its lines of communication to other Groups, its duty is to gather the data necessary for the Realization of the desired changes. The Flow then reverses and the steps necessary to realize the Goal pass back down to the lower Groups in the form of Suggestions and Plans – analogous to, but not the same as Orders. (There is no need to beat a willing horse. And if he is not willing, that is his sovereign right.)