Every collective, every group, every organization, is little if any more than an abstract construct created to embody a descriptive concept of some specifically-picked group of individuals. As a result, of course, individuals within a society have different views, different goals, different sympathies and different preferences, and - of course - different mindsets and different approaches both to self and the world. Save for the direct violence, to be more precise - forced alteration of a totally unprotected person through technological means (Which is something our target audience can refuse and likely will), there is no way to influence a person's mindset.
So what we need to deal with, is that there will always be individuals with a mindset that differs from the "common sense".
"You can not solve a problem by pretending it isn't here."
Just as any other self-concerned individual, they will protect themselves using any means if they're subjected to any form of violence and oppression. The results of that can be evidenced by a surge of support towards libertarian ideals, as of late 10's - all of those libertarian ideals were created by just a handful of self-concerned individuals, like Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and Samuel-Edward Konkin III.
Their ideals have successfully invaded even the conservative-minded contingent, injecting certain thoughts and concerns (for example, a heightened level of attention towards police violence, a notion that taxation is theft, and distrust towards politicians and Government in general) into the conservative mainstream. To combat this, it took numerous orchestrated acts of violence (BLM "peaceful" riots) to restore blind support towards police, a hastened development of means of control (5G towers/Magneto protein), heightened pedo-hysteria to raise love towards control again, and a vast, wide conservative propaganda. All of these operations cost money and resources. Lots of them.
All because some individuals who do not want anyone to govern them got caught in the same regime that is applied to others - to those who want at least some degree of oversight, paternalism and guidance. Thinking that freedom-loving individuals are too few in numbers, and therefore are insignificant, have backfired eventually.
Recent observations have confirmed the notion that individuals go along with force and coercion poorly, when it is directed towards them; but given the right reason, many of them are not only ready to accept authority - they actually want authority and regulation - doesn't mean they're all in for a totalitarian regime, but their primary - or at least highly-valued - goals seem to be law, order, traditions and morality - the latter two are especially valued.
Which means that, if you're trying to force lots of rules on them and make them obey - it doesn't work well and, actually, provokes rebellious thoughts - their trust in the government lowers, and not even promises of freebies are going to restore it fully. Which results in decreased efficiency of regulations, decreased productivity due to mental strain, and even creates a threat of subversion of government. But, if we estimate an optimal moral-traditional-cultural framework, and let it run the lives of majority - with little government intervention - we'll actually create an orderly, civil, and productive society.
Sounds surprising, but this is, apparently, how things are. After all, laws aren't some magical directives enforced by themselves - they're actually enforced by the people, and the less trust the people have in the government, the closer they are to realization of this fact.
In order for people to uphold the laws, they need to be convinced to - or tricked into thinking that laws are either important, necessary, or that breaking them will bring really really bad consequences. Problem is, whatever is the approach, the lower is the people's trust in the government, the harder it is to make them obey the laws. The more oppression is tied to law enforcement, the more people will think those laws are to hurt them, not to help them. And the more they'll want to get rid of them, and the mechanism that keeps them running.
"You can not solve a problem by pretending it isn't here."
The first layer, the Law Layer, is therefore designed to be shallow. The Law Layer is the strongest authority, which can be only superseded when there is an absolute reason proving that it is either ineffective, harmful, or hurts an individual unnecessarily in a given particular case. The functions of the first layer are:
- Maintaining both personal and group security by defining overwhelming punishments for violent offenders/private property trespassers. Depending on the severity and consequence of the offense, as well as the negotiability of the offender, different punishments might be applied. For example, a violent, non-negotiable agent such as a gangster might be terminated, while a one-time thief, fully willing to both return the full amount of assets he stole and pay compensation for continuous damage resulted by theft, might get off with a relatively light punishment or none at all. Provided that the thief actually pays the compensation and returns the assets in at least the condition they've obtained them in.
- Regulating relationships between communities in a way that prevents any inter-community violence, including unwanted ideological invasion and destabilization of a community's standards by outsiders. Note that care should be taken, as some certain measures might bring more harm than good, or bring unwanted consequences which will simply nullify the necessity of preserving community standards by turning them into something unbearable.
- Partially, for protection of basic social values. Though these laws mustn't undermine any of the utilitarian liberties - such as freedom of expression and freedom of cognition, freedom of association, freedom of self-determination, freedom of beliefs, and so on - they must be just enough to prevent any hostile ideology, such as socialism, Marxism (Which turn both the state and the citizens into unhappy servants if executed properly), or communism (Which obliterate both the state, the property and, eventually, persona itself in the long run - thus wanted by nobody aware of its true form). In other words, to prevent the destruction of existing society, including with the goal of replacing its directives and establishing a new regime across the nation.
Laws are, therefore, a tool designed to ensure the stability and security of the society - and, by extension, all of its members - not a governing or policy-making tool. The latter should be handled by Layer Two and beyond.
Layer Two is made of principles on which the society is built. A common-sense framework, which largely defines the cognitive basis of a common, normal person.
Note that this framework is not a government imperative enforced by power structures, such as the police, but a system of cognitive functions taught to a person over the course of their life. Teaching must be persistent, but not compulsive or intrusive; it must, first and foremost, create loyalty towards common-sense principles - which is done not through fear and violence, but through careful persuasion.
Teaching should focus on rewarding people for following the rules, not punishing those who disobey; instead of having the "Obey the rules, or else" message, it should be "Follow the rules, and the society will reward you kindly; but the more you follow your own judgement instead, the more you'll have to rely on your own". Punitive approach, while fairly effective, still is based on violence - it works by teaching people that they should obey, or else - and this is a weakness, since it makes people unhappy, make them want to get rid of violence, and associated teachings, forever. And the more assertive their government grows, the higher the desire is.
People should know not that there will be punishments for not abiding by the common sense, but that there are rewards for doing so. There are social people, those who want to communicate, cooperate, be a part of the society; they will be more than happy to accept the common sense framework, which makes life so easy and worry-free. There are those who strive primarily for personal well-being, sovereignty, freedom and autonomy; they will be more than happy to sacrifice some of the benefits the society grants them in exchange for the society leaving them alone, letting them build their own minds and mind their own businesses - without intervention, oversight, and regulation.
"The strong mind demands not common sense, but privacy, autonomy, and sovereignty. The strong mind is capable of minding their own ways; if anything, they're happy to be this way."
The Layer Three handles time-condition relevant guidance of masses. If the Layer Two is a combination of principles employed by society on a more or less long-term scale, the traditional-moral-cultural framework handles societies on a smaller scale - clans, cults, clubs and other kinds of organizations and societies within the Nation, or other kind of generalized society - as it is most fitting according to current situation.
Layer Three is, therefore, a localized, de-personalized form of local government, regulating citizens' lives on local level as it is needed to achieve certain goals and as it is most efficient according to local folks' mentality, their accumulated principles, and their desire to be governed. Layer Three is, once again, a non-compulsive, non-oppressive form of government, working primarily through common sense framework, collective principles of a particular society, reputation mechanisms, and other forms of social encouragement.
The efficiency of such approach can be proved using the example of social media.
On one hand, there's Facebook, there's Twitter, and other "big-tech" social media services; they are known for their aggressive censorship - through silencing people by deleting their posts, limiting their potential audience through selective promotion and concealment of their content, and creating an army of "fact-checker" demagogues in hope to use the Appeal to Authority fallacy to change others' minds. Though their censorship seems to be quite shallow, lots of negative reputation have been created towards Facebook and similar sites, and there is already a strong community of people who are highly unsympathetic towards "Big Tech" and the "Silicon Valley". The numbers of those people are reportedly growing.
But on the other hand, there is a number of relatively free-speech platforms. Save for Minds.com, the majority of users on these platforms are right-wing activists, and most of them have relatively few restrictions on actual speech allowed on the platforms. Despite the freedom of speech, however, very few (and in many case, none) individuals dare to express any views that go against the conservative mainstream narrrative - not because they'll get "shadow-banned", but because they'll barely get anything but dissympathy and bad reputation for this. No one is going to listen to them. No one is going to debate them. The attitude towards them is always the same, "You may be saying something valuable, and you may be perfectly right about what you say, but nobody cares. We are wrong, authoritarian, evil... whatever we are. And we like it this way. Go away. You are not welcome here."
Unlike the government, traditions and customs come directly from the people - and have their full support - so their usage is more recommended than use of force-backed governing, which is far more risky. This also means that such a governing will be much faster, much more effective and will require much less resources to perform administrative tasks - as the system is, basically, self-governing and self-enforcing.
The Fourth Layer creates a positive-emotion environment for a more efficient induction of common-sense values, customs and traditions. Through media and entertainment products containing special messages, or series of messages, acting primarily on subliminal level and appealing to emotions, a desired attitude towards certain practices, ideas, mindsets, or even living entities can be shaped.
The construction of a suitable entertainment or media product, let alone a suitable mainstream, is by no means an easy task, however. The key is that the final product must be satisfactory and pleasant for the consumer; the consumer must fully agree with the message within, not to treat it as "propaganda" and be aware of the "brainwashing". Attempts to push "woke" cultural narrative are a good example; instead of carefully injecting ideas and thoughts, creators of woke media decided to get aggressive - and they've got really low sales as a result.
The message should be subtle, and should go smoothly without alarming the viewer of an attempt to brainwash them, or promote something. Entertainment is primarily entertainment, after all; teaching morals and values using it is done through pleasure, not boring ideologies and out-of-place inclusions - like a whole palette of races, as well as women and disabled, fighting against Nazis.
This is also why the Fourth Layer should not work by oppressing non-ideological entertainment, or alternative ideas in works of art - but instead, it should work by incorporating works that contain a moral-ethical message in the whole pool of art and entertainment.
The control over expression of ideas should be done not through punitive restrictions, such as ban of certain ideas and artworks in Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Russia, but through private regulations. Majority of social media services should have rules prohibiting certain forms of expression and certain content; this is a good example of how a typical conservative network should be run. Free-speech sites should exist, but they should be scarce; population should primarily be encouraged to move to Brighteon-style social media, leaving the rest to freedom-lovers, strong supporters of alternative ideologies, and rational people preferring constructive, unrestrained debates, as well as non-orthodox artists, musicians and other content-creators.
This way, we ensure that the majority of people should be exposed to mostly conservative-themed content (or whatever ideology will be chosen as mainstream), and finding non-orthodox art and entertainment (such as pornography, sex-games, movies and games containing lots of profanity, violence and/or "toilet humor", artworks endorsing non-mainstream movements) will be hard - not impossible, but hard enough to deter those who just want some good entertainment, and to ensure that the only consumers of such artworks will be those who actually look for this.
The Fifth Layer, the Invisible Layer, is daily human interaction. Assuming the induction of ideologies, morals, ethics and traditions was successful, people are expected to not only follow their directives, but correct each other in an imprinting-like fashion.
The Invisible Layer is not only a passive governing tool, but also an indicator of society's health. By watching over people's interactions, one can tell whether the society is healthy, or experiences problems; for example, people following moral and cultural codes - and doing it without any signs of displeasure and doing it as they would do any thing that's natural for them - is a sign of healthy society; but any signs of displeasure, or unwanted trends developing in the mainstream society, or distrust towards social norms and authorities, are signs of something going wrong.
The Fifth Layer is a passive governing mechanism, which means - it works on itself, without any intervention; and though direct intervention is theoretically possible, it is usually better to address general trends instead of trying to change people directly, as they might treat this as "annoying" and therefore lower their trust and loyalty even further.
Though passive, it is a crucial element of self-governing; guided by traditions, morals, ethics and ideological doctrines, people reward and punish each other on their own volition - according to what the Layers Two and Three dictate. Examples could be a Christian bakery or a restaurant owner refusing to serve freedom-lovers; or a working collective refusing to communicate with someone without moral judgement; or a shop offering discounts or special products for acknowledged Christians, moralists or conservatives; or a denial of a right to vote for local government for those who openly support rival ideas (say, if you're a social democrat in a traditional-conservative district).
The Fifth Layer is also a realization of the previous four layers. Ideologically motivated, moral, traditional, faithful citizens, who voluntarily and consciously follow the mainstream guiding principles, and motivate each other to diligently follow the guiding principles - they form an orderly, disciplined, and responsible society.
Finally, the Sixth Layer, the Test Layer, is for testing new trends that could, potentially, optimize the way the society is being run.
The Sixth Layer, unlike the Fifth, isn't something that is taught to people, nor it is something that should be "tolerated" or "respected". It is, in fact, a suite of experimental policies, morals, and principles, which should be normally treated with high caution - unless they prove to be highly enough efficient in real-life situations.
The Sixth Layer is, basically, a bunch of recommendations and advices, as well as test ideas and solutions for existing problems . The Sixth Layer, unlike the previous layers, is not to be applied widely, but instead is to be used in communities adapted for its testing, having policies significantly deviating from the mainstream and close to what is planned to be tested - this way, we save the mainstream community from potential risks of new ideologies while having real-life examples of experimental policies in work.
It is important that the Sixth Layer should not be used widely, no matter how much test ideas are scheduled; excessive exposure to test ideas could potentially ruin the entire mainstream society, so the bulk of the nation should be under the "normal" traditional-conservative framework.
Comparison of multi-layer governments vs. rule-of-law based unitary governments
|Multi-layer, flexible governments||Single-regime, law-run governments|
|Administration largely through common-sense, morals, traditions and customs; allows creation of flexible regimes, swiftly adapting to current reality||Administration through law; less flexible and vulnerable against law overloads|
|Allows practicing different social norms between communities, while retaining a strong common-sense based social framework for easy and cooperative interaction between different communities||Though federated, laws are divided territorially; such territorial division does not necessarily reflect the interests of individuals and community representatives, and the lack of flexibility creates numerous problems, such as dissent and aggressive propagation of alternative ideologies|
|Traditions and morals enforced largely through common-sense based interactions, causing little civil unrest||Law enforcement is based largely on coercion, force and intimidation, and lack of acknowledgement and support from the civilians raises level of dissatisfaction with the government, making civilians want to change things|
|Requires minimum resources and effort for administration due to communities' self-government||Requires high expenses on police forces just to contain the population - which doesn't appreciate the law-backed regulation.|
|Offers good possibilities both for self-reliant individuals, thanks to very shallow laws, and for community-reliant types, thanks to communities' ability to regulate themselves to a great degree, as well as nationwide common sense||Requires a very carefully-built mesh of laws and high social stability to keep the society running and the citizens satisfied and productive; prone to destabilization at sometimes slight social changes|
|A healthy competition-cooperation of cultures, naturally arising from their coexistence in one nation and good mechanisms, both community-level and inter-community, designed to safeguard each of them||Unstable singular system for managing different customs, easily rigged to favor some of them and often resulting in destructive conflicts|
|Low-conflict environment faciliating greater cooperation and enhancing interaction on a nation-wide scale||Constant conflicts within the country, caused both by a huge difference between an entity's socio-political preferences and the actual socio-political regime, and the desire of each entity to shift it in their favor|
|Higher level of civil trust and loyalty due to more comfortable social environment||Civil distrust as a result of the state's failing effort to control their populace through a uniform law system|