Collective Financing System

At the core of the Creatocracy is a new Collective Financing System (CFS). The CFS is divided into council´s who are responsible for managing collective ambitions, which might be non-profitable or profit making ventures. In accordance with the example of a Power Law model, the CFS is made up of Collective Financing Councils (CFCs) who are highly respected (hubs) and who are linked to people (nodes) in the communities. For example, a person (node) finds a CFC with a good set of services and who is good at managing projects. This person then joins that CFC. People can link to whichever CFCs they respect according to its past performance. The CFCs are not necessarily selected on a geographical but rather on performance and ideological basis.

Local CFCs then individually group up with other CFCs for projects that need wider co-operation. These CFCs are responsible for managing projects that the wider community members desire. These projects might include collective insurance, road building, recycling of waste, or creative projects such as a new free cinema, or whatever is in the collective interest of the wider community.

For example, if someone has an idea for creating a new non-profitable library, they campaign to others within their community. After finding say 50 sponsors (threshold decided by CFC members) who declare the project worthy, they then approach their CFC management committee with the project and a list of the sponsors. Their CFC is then obliged to compile a proposal with projected costs and offer this to all of its members. If the support is gained of say 70 percent (threshold decided by CFC members) and the members approve the new project and agree for the CFC to manage the project, then members begin to pay the new agreed tax level, which incorporates the new project. Then the CFC places a management committee onto the project who implement the project in conjunction with the original concept developer who is employed to oversee its creation.

If the management team of the CFC have a good history and are highly connected then they are very likely to attract a lot of projects. Hence by preferred choice they become one of the larger CFCs.

As some people may not support every project undertaken by the wider community, whilst they are linked to that CFC they are obliged to contribute to all the mandatory projects of each particular CFC (decided by current members). They remain free to join other CFCs who might offer specific services that appeal to a selective community. CFCs might also offer services that are not mandatory. People would have the choice to decide upon supporting the CFCs of their preference that would manage their collective tax contributions.

Projects need not necessarily be non-profitable, and those that did profit would lessen the burden upon the members of that CFC. Income would provide it with the ability to provide added value services to its members. Hence, CFCs that were efficient and more profitable naturally would be more attractive to perspective members.

Where a project is instigated by one CFC, but is attractive to members of another CFC, who want to utilise this project only, those members would effectively be able to join both CFCs. For example, say one CFC managed a library for its members, but members of another CFC wanted to utilise this facility, then these members would be requested to join both CFCs. Their collective tax contribution would then be split between both CFCs according to the percentage of services utilised by the members. For example, one CFC might charge members of another CFC 5 percent of their collective tax contribution if they just wanted to utilise their library, but they might charge members of another CFCs 3 percent, depending upon the level of co-operation between the CFCs. Some CFCs may link up for bigger projects where others decline to co-operate.

Each CFC would be obliged to publish on the Internet their balance of payments, and all financing information for internal operations and managed projects. This would include the CFCs past, present and future planed projects. This will allow transparent scrutiny of the CFCs efficiency and elegance.

Any suspicions of misappropriation of funds would result in the CFC, and its associated management committee, facing charges by its members, who would effectively bring a class action against anyone, suspected of wrong doing, before an independent Conflict Resolution Provider who would decide the case.

If the management team supplied by the CFC fail to manage a project effectively then the members of the community can by group decision (threshold decided by CFC members) reallocate the project to another management committee or CFC. This means that the original CFC are only the preferred management agents, and do not have indefinite control of assets that have been paid for by its members.

The collective tax levels will fluctuate according to the requirements of the members of the Creatocracy. I.e. the total volume of projects that individuals support and have available to them.

Where members of the Creatocracy failed to link to CFCs who provide essential services and in doing so levied distress upon other members of the Creatocracy, they will be charged accordingly. For example, if one member failed to employ a CFC to collect and recycle rubbish those affected could bring a case against the person for levying distress upon the environment or themselves.