Implementation Schedule

The implementation of matchism should proceed as follows (many of these steps can proceed in parallel):

  • Refinement of the matchism philosophy and Manifesto based on input from skeptics and converts.
  • Create the Internet-based proposal+voting system (The System)
  • Promote the use of The System by other organizations to find and address the flaws in it, including for shareholders in corporations (both non-profit and for-profit), land use and planning boards, and city and county governments. The ultimate test cases will be shadowing local governments, taking the same information they have but letting matchists in those areas do the voting instead. Comparing matchism vote with the “official” vote, particularly after time has elapsed, will enable the quality of the decision to be assessed. This will be a key step toward convincing people that matchism is ready for adoption. The intermediate goal would be to have the “official” government get into the habit of providing the public with all of the information needed to make decisions (which, really, they should be doing already), then let The System do the work, then have the official government ratify the output of The System.
  • Translation of this document and The System into different languages to facilitate adoption from non-English-speaking individuals.
  • The local and global statute packages should be written by proponents of matchism, drawing from the best available source material, using The System to refine and approve it. They will do the same for the various Credentials and the tests necessary to implement them.
  • Develop prototype budgets and tax/land lease rates.
  • Design and implement “virtual world” simulations of matchism, and test them to find exploits and to help refine Goals and preliminary tax rates (i.e., these might be games like SimCity or Second Life, but with challenges from the real-world thrown in such as natural and human-caused disasters, child-rearing, sickness/accidents/deaths, etc. to encourage people to evaluate the system from behind Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”).
  • Develop and test military and international political simulations to help refine matchish policies and tactics.
  • Develop a “Plan Readiness Scale”, to help determine how ready existing Localities are to adopt matchism, and encourage reforms and competition between them to increase their scores.
  • Develop and begin education in matchish: The first adoption can be done in the native language of the first Localities, but subsequent adoptions by localities with a different current language must be done in matchish.
  • Promote matchism to the international community and develop the resources to aid a first adopter in preparing an Implementation Agreement. Then locate that first adopter. Followers of matchism will provide administrative and financial assistance as part of the Globality, greatly reducing the cost and risk to the new Localities.

The US is actually not a good candidate for first adopter. Per capita public debt is relatively high (twice what it is in Scandinavian countries), as are under-funded pensions and other “hidden” debt. Religious fundamentalists make up too high a percentage of the population, and there is that unholy alliance between the 1% and the poor and undereducated Authoritarians that will oppose it (Remember, the social engineering countermeasures to the corrupting influence of Corporate political advertising won’t come into effect until after matchism is adopted). Mix in groups like lawyers, the military-industrial complex, and family-dynasty corporations that stand to lose the majority of their wealth and power as direct result of matchist policies, and it becomes clear that the US will get dragged into adopting matchism only when neurotypicals react to continued failures in US policy that Plan Localities don’t seem to suffer. US citizens might also have to become willing to tolerate having their benefits cut or taxes increased to enable them to pay back the massive debt they have accrued (increased efficiency will reduce taxes a great deal later on, but the piper must be paid first). And should certain “blue” states try to secede from the US and adopt matchism independently, it is likely that the “red” states would take action to prevent it (ironic as that would be, of course).

But there are far worse candidates, including any other country with a large fundamentalist population, which, probably not coincidentally, are apt to be those countries that lack the traditions and infrastructure to ensure a highly educated population and also the Internet infrastructure necessary to implement The System. Should the population of one of these countries decide to adopt matchism, perhaps after a coup d’etat, it would put the entire proposal at serious risk. Having the Globality include Credentialed individuals from outside the Locality will certainly help, but it would still take a huge amount of money and effort to start with an undeveloped and war-torn country.

Other poor candidates for early adopters are India and China, even though their rampant corruption and systemically-enforced socioeconomic stratification will make the people of these nations among those who will benefit the most from the adoption of matchism. Unfortunately this very socioeconomic stratification is the thing that makes them poor early candidates for implementation: A little freedom is a dangerous thing and granting a large amount of it to a large population that is not accustomed to it would most likely cause social instability and in turn threaten the viability of matchism. They will be good candidates for early implementation of The System, particularly at local levels, however.

Therefore, the best candidates for first-adopter and other early adopters are northern-European countries and Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada), all of which boast high levels of education, robust Internet infrastructure, a tradition of democracy and progressivism, and low to moderate debt levels (One check on this list is the Good Country Index). After a few of them have shown matchism to be viable, picking up some of the more developed countries in SE Asia (e.g., South Korea, Japan (although Japan’s public debt ratio is extremely high and so conversion will be more difficult for them), Taiwan, Singapore) and southern and eastern European countries with a history of Authoritarian problems (particularly including Russia) will be a logical progression. Picking up Localities from developed areas emerging from civil wars (particularly major cities in northern Africa) should always be an option.

Along with their contribution of effort toward running a global government, The matchish should provide a financial incentive to encourage/compensate early adopters. For example there could be a global voluntary 1% matchish sales tax to build a pool of money to be used by these early adopters. Businesses would compete for loyalty by offering this option to their customers, and would collect the money, convert it to GEM, and then forward it to a trust fund. Each nation that converts would get, say, 1/2 of the available funds. With global input for years prior to an implementation, and a small country being the first implementer, that first set of matchish Localities would be able to do major infrastructure upgrades with the available funding, providing them a major incentive to adopt earlier rather than later.

An issue that will most likely come up that should influence the order and rate of acceptance of Localities from countries currently classified as “Third World” is how infrastructure funding from the Globality will be apportioned. There will come a time when The People will have to choose between approving funding for a high speed rail system between two developed Localities, or putting this money into a new water treatment plant for a new Locality where the residents lack basic sanitation. By utilitarian philosophy the latter would be the clear choice, but this again is how matchism differs from utilitarian philosophy.

It bears repeating that matchism is not a plot to overthrow the government, let alone do so violently. In fact the design of matchism is to limit the power of the very people most likely to resort to violence to achieve their goals. Until a majority of the citizens in some Locality vote to implement matchism, there are no matchist individuals or matchish people, and so there can be no basis for any charges of sedition or treason. Any attempt to suppress discussion of matchism is therefore nothing but a run-of-the-mill violation of basic human rights (assembly, free speech, etc.)

Nevertheless, history has shown that any time a minority can be identified, SDAPs will endeavor to discriminate against them. In recognition of this, the implementation plan for matchism should include specific countermeasures to limit SDAP ability to do this, and protect and compensate anyone who has suffered from discrimination and a result of their matchist orientation. This may be as simple as supplementing their income by allowing them to work in The System, but may involve more specific action against the SDAPs involved. Matchism is by nature a peaceful philosophy, but it is by no means a pacifist philosophy: Aggression and even violence from SDAPs can by countered by aggression and violence if social engineering shows that this type of response will have a deterrent value rather than cause an escalation of a conflict.

Next: Matchish War Scenario