The Agrarian Village Model
Perhaps more utopian ideal than reality, the idea is for each person and community to look to their own basics (governance, housing, and fuels), before looking to outside support, trade, specialization and commerce.
The community would be sized so that every adult (a term that would be defined by the community) has some meaningful voice in their community (therefore, no numerical limit, but rather limited by each individual having enough element of say, influence, and control in the community to have it continue to work for xem, and therefore be more likely to stay part of it).
The governance of the community (a mutual undertaking supporting protection, adjudication, and cooperation) could be established and revised however the community agreed. It would be essential for the communities to have some framework of relationship between each other (higher level government) so that they could at least provide for their common defense. It would likely also be a requirement of such higher level government to ensure that no person was unduly fettered to xeir(xes) community, thereby providing a meaningful check on power by allowing individuals to vote with their feet.
While it may be reasonable to assume the basics could be provided under such a system, it is likely that in order to have higher level products and services, there would need to be specialization (which then necessitates transport, trade, and accounting). Having basics production and specialization coexist should not be mutually exclusive, though it does allow less time and energy to be spent on specialization (but makes to the community far less resilient to shocks to the general system or to reduced demand for their speciality, while also proving something for people to go back to should either of those occur).
It is perhaps also a more traditional and proven model (not without its history of abuses) that can provide stability and foundation in the inherently uncertain future.
Advantages
- Strong foundation makes the community less susceptible to want due to uncontrollable outside forces.
- Having the essentials provided enables the community and individuals to have greater choice of their actions (since they can not be compelled by the basic necessities to take certain actions).
- Each individual has greater say in their community, and thus is better able to advocate for their own needs, which should result in a more invested and proactive community.
- It allows for greater diversity and experimentation as each community may adapt custom and norms as experience has dictated (provided such actions do not harm other communities).
_
Disadvantages
- Possible tendency towards isolation, stagnation, and decline.
- By the inherent effort of providing basics it is less efficient, and therefore makes the community servants to the provisions of its basic needs (as opposed to the servants of the providers of those needs).
- The possibility that the loose affiliation of villages would be unable to effectively protect themselves (and/or cooperate enough to do so) from a consolidated external opposing force, and therefore be subject to servitude (or ruin) via a more direct and traditional fashion.
- It requires enough land and resources that each community may operate (somewhat) independently of each other (though this can always be reduced, for example by using greenhouses instead of fields, at some population level it likely becomes less feasible).
_