A really working society should be the one where everybody can be elected to a position of power according to THEIR OWN SKILLS and have not a single ounce of power more in what he or she isn't competent in.

A harmonious society is one where people are elected to positions of power within their own competences

and society itself can rearrange its structure, laws and institutions to fit in with the people it itself is comprise of.

That's how a perfectly progressing harmonious society should be arranged as.

No prime ministers, lords, senators, deputies or anything that has too much power on a too broad scale,

but rather a pristine and self-contingent structure where the talents of each and every can be measured against the output for the ALL he or she is capable of producing and is rewarded with a position of power equivalent to his or her skills and that output.

Perfect societies actually don't run on power.

Perfect societies run on the COMPETENCE of the people in power

and absolute power produces absolutely incompetent people.

Tel me about that?

It is why spheres of power should be divided and people held in charge over only that which they can best do.

But on the other hand people should also have some UNIVERSAL spheres of power important for the wellbeing of all where any member of society can participate in.

These I define as the 3 spheres of creation, destruction and decision.

Anybody should be capable of holding power in any of these 3 spheres, however his or her OWN PLACE INSIDE these spheres should not be equal, for people aren't created to be equal.

It translates as anyone being able to produce something, e.g. having a job,

Everybody being able to defend his own country in one way or the other-here is where you need to have a citizenry with military background, a population prepared for war-be it civil or against any other threat and the right for every able body person to BARE ARMS to be able to defend him or herself

It also translates as anyone being able to elect or be elected to a position of decision making authority, or as we put it-a political office, however instead of having some universal positions and institutions, we should have a societies where power is divided by competence and the people who are under the influence of a particular agency are also capable of voting the people who control them, too.

I shall call this kind of DEMOCRACY, for it's a democracy by its basic foundations

STRUCTURAL democracy

for people are voted in and out of a particular position for a particular task and there isn't some universal body making decisions randomly for everything and anything.

Are you being able to now grasp the immense complexity under this otherwise so simple-looking symbol?

Satan just called, he wants me to read this when I go to hell

@yordanyordanov, I'm reading through it now.

The symbol is simple but the meanings are many.

It's not simpple decoding it.

You seem to make the mistake of believing the economy is to be ran, and you don't define as to the extent of interventionism and limits of any centralized bodies you'd allude to.

Much of the structure, however, is something you can observe as already in place in the United States. When you speak of three spheres, we have already three depositories of power, with complex mechanics to ensure one doesn't encroach upon the other, while self-interest preserves the desire to ensure an absence of overzealous and expansionary power. I won't say an amendment or two to the U.S. Constitution hasn't subverted some of these structural intents, however, nationalizing politics away from localized interests.

Actually I do believe economy can be run efficiently, however, not by a central, key word is CENTRAL authority.

An economy is efficient when markets are at equilibrium.

Perfect efficiency is when supply and demand converges.

That requires no planning, no intervention.

However if we get a bunch of professional organizations each with their own particular background and authorities it can happen.

I don't think markets are that efficient

Reasons are two"

The existence of financial crises

and 2. The ability of private interests to establish control over particular markets.

communism 45.0 hasnt been tried yet

What makes markets efficient is actually competition and competition can be inbuild in structures, markets aren't necessary for competition to exist.

Who told I'm a communist.

its obvious

Where do I talk about class struggle?