In our continuing series of In Case You Missed It reruns of previous articles, on this Throwback Thursday, we return to August of 2016 for a thoughtful piece by Hunter Trujillo looking at an alternate vision for modern social construct...

I've  noticed a strong undercurrent of exclusionary practices by society which marginalizes and demoralizes otherwise exceptional individuals.

To  help this situation, I want to someday help create a compelling and sustainable community that envisions a different society. One that  values life, and people, and the environment we all live in. I think  it's possible if we can decentralize the means of manufacturing. The  communists had something when they thought of reclaiming the factories,  but now, I think it might be possible to make our own. To become  self-sustaining, without economies of scale. To build industry upon  boutique practices, just by automating repetitive tasks. If we just  considered automated labor as belonging to nobody but the community,  thus begins the demonetization of goods. I can imagine machines that could build houses, farms, energy  collection, vehicles, and cities, all ownerless and demonetized. Thus,  the forces towards centralization in the economy as it stands today are  rendered ineffective. The society then becomes independent.

Another  idea is that not every needs to work in order to maintain the standard  of living even an intentional community would require. There'd still be  plenty of work to do, just a need for fewer people to do it. This would  allow for people to pursue their own goals and passions, or to focus on  themselves.

I think it'd be prudent to be governed by a sort of  social anarchy. There should be protections in the society to not try to  gain power over others, and if they try to, society will not physically  reject them, but instead, would reject them in principle. Consider  people simply disconnecting from them using a social network.

As  for the social part of social anarchy, the idea should be that those who  can work to help society in some way, they should, but it's not a  necessity. There should also be a very broad definition of what someone  might be doing to help society, in order to include people doing things  purely for artistic and cultural benefit, or blue sky research that  might not yield results for many lifetimes. Consider what we could do if we thought not by the next fiscal quarter, or the next election cycle, but generations ahead.

It's  not an idea that should languish or fail to spread if put into practice  just once, and if all practices are open source, transparent, and  communicated well, an ownerless city should be replicable anywhere. So,  as with any good open community, as they say in open source (software)  parlance, let's "fork" society.