An adventurous and well-educated populace might vote for this, such as a college town, or a rural enclave of 'counter-culture' types.
Proposals for programmes and experimental laws to try in a SPED would be voted on three times: firstly, should a given idea be considered further? secondly, does the proposal need alternative versions to be shaped and presented? and thirdly, to try or drop the final version of the proposal?
The benefits for SPED inhabitants could include:
- Tax relief from the central government in recognition of the risks residents would be taking;
- Government start-up money for some of the innovative experiments;
- Rotating heads of local government;
- Prestige and a sense of increased group and personal meaningfulness, helping determine future trends in the larger society;
- Benefits from particular experimental projects that work as intended.
Examples of the sorts of projects that could be tried abound in the Institute's publications. Further possible examples include:
- Car-free and car-limited regions;
- Self-planned independent study programmes in schools;
- Basic income schemes;
- Weekly TV-free days;
- Total redesign of street and other exteriors through massive public arts programmes.
Gregory Wright, 14161 Riverside Drive, #3, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, USA (tel 818 784 0325).
It does seem a very intriguing concept. If such SPEDs existed in this country, then they would provide a very useful method of introducing, on a strictly democratic basis, community innovation of all kinds and the development of the 'bottom-up' approach generally. Obviously, there is enormous scope.
My only reservation would be that for what might be quite a major upheaval for a community rather more than a two- thirds majority should be necessary before a SPED was established. Perhaps 75% or 80% would be better.