Who decides the initial ‘rules’ of the community? The rules in this context can be considered the regulations, procedures and systems that are put in place to allow the smooth running of the community. It is implicit that these rules should not run counter to the legal framework of the country the community resides in, or international law. However, it is possible the community may break with cultural or religious traditions and ideologies of its host country, but once again only if it remains within the civil laws of the country.
Rules should not be made for every misdemeanour if you have a lot of rules it is because the individual is corrupt, inept or utterly unable to be autonomous. The more laws we have the more it shows the lack of discipline, empathy, character and common decency of the individual, which is exactly what we are trying to develop in the citizens of this community.
As mentioned in such entries as 9, 17, 21, 25 (and others) there are two forms of regulation Internal (moral) and External (enforced) we should always attempts to build on the former so that the latter becomes more unnecessary.
Obviously as the scientific method shows us, and some glaring examples of modern nations, laws can become stagnant and redundant in the light of new evidence and changes in the understanding of our world. In this viewpoint new technologies and changing understanding of the mind can effect ethical issues and processes that were once thought to be fundamentally necessary.
Ultimately then the ‘rules’ that are written must be subject to change irrelevant of who wrote them initially, as humans are fallible and inherently prone to error. Initially, there should be a regular weekly discussion of the rules and processes by the founding members that should take place in the form of a dialogue whereby two independent groups tackle the same rules system (on the same subject). After a set of rules has been decided on by the two independent groups they come together and discuss and defend their solutions. Once the discussion is complete there will be a vote requiring a 2/3 majority for the ‘rules’ or ‘process’ to be accepted.
After all the various moral laws and enforced regulations and guidelines are decided on they should be recorded and followed for a significant period of time (upward of a year at the very least). At which point the process begins again from scratch.
Rule generating committees should be created at random with lots with any full-time member of the community viable to be chosen. This avoids stacked communities and avoids more complicated electoral processes. A group of officials should also be selected to become intimately familiar with the rules to help with regulatory decisions or disputes (see later) of misconduct. This committee will also be selected at random and have the same lifespan as the rules.
The officials who are intimately familiar with the rules should be present and participate in the debates forming the new set of rules once the older regulations reach the end of their allotted tenure. This is due to the fact that they will be considered experts; however, while they may debate the merits or flaws of rules used in the prior period they have no voting power on the new set of rules, they are in effect present purely for experienced input and insight.
It should be obvious from the above but even the rules, procedures and regulations outlined in this document are also subject to dismissal and change. They are simply explorations and thoughts into the way such a community could work.