I estimate that this arrangement should work well for a population up to four million. Larger populations would need to be subdivided into districts for the Services to function effectively. The plenarchy is intended to be decentralized and the Services has a flat organizational structure. Each district would its own version of Joint Council minus the State and Defense councils and branches. Also, as the branches become large, office level councils can be formed below the level of Service councils. No further hierarchical depth should be considered again to maintain a flat organization. I see no limit to the size of the plenarchy given its modular decentralized structure.

click image to enlarge

But as Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” We now know unequivocally that liberty will absolutely succumb to the relentless assault of those evil men who want to use the coercive force of government to serve their own purposes and wantonly walk society down the path to despotism with one deceitful rationalization after another. There is then no hope that government can ever be too small or too limited but must actually not be permitted to exist at all if freedom is to live. Does this mean though the only solution left to us is that there can be no state at all as the anarchist believes? Not only do I think the state can exist without government, but that this model of domestically non-interventionist state is necessary for liberty to flourish and be sustained. The challenge then is to develop such a state and this is what plenarchy attempts to do.

What freedom-minded people find so objectionable is not the state itself but rather state interventionism. If the state had no power to intervene in the affairs of the people, then liberty can thrive. The anti-statist will respond that there can be no assurance that even a non-interventionist state won’t eventually morph into a government, but there can also be no certainty that the anarchy won’t suffer the same fate. In fact, I believe that a state designed to be non-interventionist is far less likely to turn into some form of government than is starting with no state at all.

If the state can be completely reactive in response to crime and dispute resolution, the question then becomes what measures can be built into the organization of the state authority to prevent the formation of government. This is the task at hand for developing the free model of plenarchy.

I have started with the premise that government grows out of the desire by those persons (the statists among us) who see government intervention as a useful means to accomplish some social end, noble or not. Thus my primary goal in plenarchy is to prevent the statist from having access to such power; to separate the statist from the state. This is accomplished first by eliminating elective office.

Elections are a means by which candidates are filtered first by those with a vested interest in using government for their selfish purposes. Only pre-selected individuals are offered as choices resulting in no real choice at all. If an unapporved candidate sneaks through the filter, a picket of party operatives stand ready to ensure the contest has their desired outcome.

But even if an honest method of electing public officials could be devised, it would be undermined by newly elected officials who seek to change the rules in favor of their sponsors. This has been the history in the United States where the two ruling parties have so twisted the laws to eliminate competition and access to power that no third party has any real chance to challenge the prevailing power centers. To counter this corrupted system, the plenarchy replaces elections with selecting public officials by lot.

Although selecting officials randomly does frustrate efforts of organized groups, it will at some point invariably bring together individuals of like mind who will want to enact laws to impose some collectivist regime on the people. Perhaps a majority of selected officials as a consequence of widely held beliefs decide that there should be laws against drug use or to create compulsory education. Any laws they would want to enact will undoubtedly reduce freedom and put the nation on the path to inevitable despotism. But in a plenarchy, this possibility is resisted because these councilors will be unorganized and have competing interests making their efforts to enact laws overtly or surreptitiously very difficult. And their time in office is short making collusion all the more challenging. It is also likely that some councilors will not agree to such statist machinations and blow the whistle.

In addition to selecting officials by lot, the plenarchy then imposes through the Compact a principle-based legal system and prohibits new laws or regulations from being enacted by the councils. Thus the officials are impotent to impose their will on the people through legislative means having no legitimate means to do so. Their authority is limited to providing governance over the Services and not the people.

Of course either deliberately or by accident, a policy ostensibly intended to affect only the Services could have a scope that extends to the people and thus have the force of law. This could be attempted through a Service council, the Joint Council, or court council by court order. There are three corrective measures the plenarchy maintains to counter such an event. The first is that any person can challenge a policy or action of the Services by filing a complaint with the Fidelis Service. The Fidelis branch exists for one purpose, to keep the Services compliant with the Compact.

But the Fidelis Service could be compromised since it is also a branch of the Services and fail to act. The second measure available to the people for challenging the Services is to file a complaint in court. The courts in the plenarchy are controlled by autonomous councils again with councilors chosen through sortition. If a court council finds the complaint of non-compliance against a Service council or the Joint Council, the court council can conduct a trial. The Services would then be prosecuted in the same way a trial is conducted against an individual would be conducted including appeals.

If court action fails, then the aggrieved parties could pursue a vote of no confidence to have the offending council removed. In the event a court council oversteps its authority, individuals can petition the Justice Council or Fidelis Council to bring the matter before the Joint Council. A Joint Council action can invalidate a court order and require another court council to retry the case. A Joint Council however cannot invalidate a court ruling for the Services violating the non-intervention clause of the Article of Principles.

Another important factor to keep the Services from increasing in scope is that each branch is independently governed by a separate council. Thus the Justice and Defense branches have equal and separate powers and governance. The Fidelis branch is separate and not beholden to any of the other branches. Since the councilors are all selected randomly, they do not enter their office with preexisting allegiances or as members of a common faction.

Finally, the valumetric system acts as an additional counter measure against the emergence of interventionist government. Traditionally, tax laws have been used by statists to grant indulgences to some, protect others, and otherwise used as a tool to expand the power and influence of the state over the people. The plenarchy has only one means of taxation; the transfer fee when funds are moved from one account to another in the valumetric system. This method of taxation is neutral, uniform, unchanging, and non-interventionist. The revenues received by the Services are anonymous and the councils have no influence on how they are generated other than to set the rate. The rate is a flat percent and everyone pays the same.

There can be no guarantee that an interventionist government doesn’t still emerge within a plenarchy. But there are multiple additive measures outlined above that will have a high likelihood of maintaining the integrity of the Services and protecting liberty. Churchill once said that, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” This statement might make sense if he were referring to actual democracy rather than the oligarchy that republicanism really is. Nonetheless, I submit that plenarchy can be better still and free humanity from the yoke of statism.

What I have gleaned from the proponents of thorium-based nuclear power is that this option could provide substantially safer, cleaner, and readily available energy. That the thorium reactor is not subject to melt down (it’s already in a molten state) and that the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation is greatly reduced not to mention that the cost of thorium reactors should be substantially cheaper than LWR plants. I’m hopeful that this technology will be developed into a practical solution and that it lives up to the hype.

So, what a great source of energy for the plenarchy? The electricity from LFTR plants could power a mag-lev personal rapid transit system completely revolutionizing transportation. Very cool.

Public goods in the plenarchy such as air and sunlight are legally defined as essential goods and are protected from harm by the Compact. Thus air pollution or building a dome over someone else’s property would be illegal. Public goods are usable by all and are not to be made scarce by anyone.

Private goods are privately owned and the owner has exclusive use rights. A residence is a private good and as a substantial private good, the owner will want to record title to that property with the Office of Records. Ownership of an automobile would also be recorded by title. In fact, any manner of private property could be recorded with the Office of Records in the form of a private property title (PPT). Incidental or non-substantial property would be simply by possession. The term of a PPT is as long as the covered property is still intact or until the owner voids the PPT.

Club goods are the public use of private property and includes intellectual property. Club goods are handled with the public use license (PUL) which replaces copyrights, patents and other forms of IP that are found in traditional law. The PUL is drafted by the IP holder and filed in the Office of Records. The PUL holder is obligated to initiate any complaints of violation of the PUL by making a charge to the courts. Any dispute over PUL infringement would then be handled in the same fashion as other trial proceedings. The PUL has a term of 25 years and is transferable.

Private use of common goods is legal in the plenarchy and handled through a common use license (CUL). Common goods (which include park lands and bodies of water) are those goods that cannot be practically owned privately and are instead owned collectively by the citizens of the plenarchy. The CUL makes it possible for individual citizens (or organizations) to make private use of common goods. This could include radio frequencies, fishing, drilling and mining. Any citizen can draft a CUL but it must be approved by a court council. The process of approving a CUL would follow the same as a court trial. The CUL is to be made public for a review period so that anyone can research and prepare a challenge to the CUL. A court proceeding would take place where the CUL advocate acts as the defendant and the challengers act as the prosecution. So essentially, the CUL would be effectively prosecuted by trial with the court council acting as judge and jury. The court council would make a judgment to allow or deny the CUL. In accordance with normal court proceedings, the decision of the court could be appealed by either party. The final court decision would stand. Like the PUL, the CUL has a 25 year term and is transferable.

I intend to elaborate more on the CUL and PUL in later posts.

Although I think the Athenian form of government had many flaws, there are several similarities to plenarchy. For instance, in ancient Athens there was an action by the citizens periodically called an Ostracism in which someone would be voted into exile for 10 years. The practice wasn’t very nice but served a purpose. An Ostracism was reserved for those the Athenians considered too powerful to remain in the city. The plenarchy version of Ostracism is the vote of no confidence that permits the citizens to replace a council who is either incompetent or overstepping their authority. No one gets banished though; they just lose their council seat.

I think there is a reason why plenarchy and Athenian democracy are so similar, yet I had no knowledge of it. It seems that the Athenians tried to contrive a system of government that would eliminate the political class just as I have. In fact, I would say the ancient Athenians verged on paranoia about the formation of a political class and with good reason.

The model of plenarchy I have developed is also intended to eliminate the political class. And I think that among the measures necessary to accomplish that inexorably leads to sortition. As well as replacing judges with citizen juries. The ancient Athenians had no prosecutors since the victim of a crime would hire their own prosecutor or prosecute on their own. It would seem that just as with plenarchy, the ancient Athenians tried very hard to ensure that any high government officials would be chosen by lot from the citizens.

But I take the Athenian model farther by eliminating the authority of the state to create new laws, to regulate, or directly tax. With these powers, a political class will emerge as new laws are enacted that over time serve to corrupt and weaken the wall of separation between the state and the statists.

From the moment of conception (natural or synthetic) to the point where sentience starts to develop, the creator (biological mother or other) has the right to terminate her pre persona fetus. However once the fetus obtains legal personhood, the right to terminate no longer exists. This pre persona time acts as an acceptance period at the end of which the parents have now entered into an implicit contract as guardians of this new person under the terms of the Principle of Family. In the case of natural birth, the biological father is also to be legally regarded as co-guardian. And for artificial life, there must be a guardian named (an individual and not an organization) to take personal legal responsibility for the new “person.”

In the plenarchy, the mother has the benefit of this acceptance period during which time she alone can choose to terminate her pregnancy for any reason without any interference by the Services, the father, or anyone. Minors however would be required to obtain parental consent before any medical procedure could be legally permitted. Once the fetus attains personhood by reaching the attendant physiological markers, the mother will not legally be able to voluntarily terminate the pregnancy. Once the fetus has reached personhood, the mother and father become legally responsible for the well-being of the fetus. If the fetus terminates for any reason thereafter, an inquiry by the Services would be required. Testimony by a qualified physician to the effect that the termination was natural and the parents not responsible would result in no further action. This ruling could be challenged by either father or mother depending on the circumstances. If a parent or anyone else is responsible for terminating the in utero persona pregnancy, then a trial would take place with the lost fetus receiving the same legal rights as any victim of murder or manslaughter.

In case of rape, the father forfeits all parental rights and is prosecuted accordingly. In the case of an adult male and minor female, this would be prosecuted as rape even if the female consented because per the Compact, minors are not able to give their legal consent. And any sexual activity between adults and minors is to be a violation of the Principle of Family anyway. In the case of two minors, if both consent no legal penalties would apply, however, the male would have no parental rights and the female’s guardians assume all legal responsibility for any resulting child. In case of an adult female and minor male, the male would have no parental rights. And as I stated above, any sexual activity between an adult and a minor would be illegal so in this case the female would be prosecuted. Minor to minor contact is not illegal if consensual, however, such contact cannot be knowingly endorsed by their guardians or the parents could be at risk of criminal violations. Thus the parents would need to make a reasonable effort to stop the sexual conduct. The Compact makes it illegal for adults to engage in or exploit any sexual activity involving minors so just having knowledge of the activity could put the parents in legal jeopardy.

Regarding abortion, the arrangements I describe above I believe take a rational approach to the abortion issue without infringing on personal religious values at least through the first trimester. After which, the fetus is to receive the legal protections of the Compact. Termination of a pregnancy is extremely personal and delicate which is why the state should have no involvement in the situation until after the point the developing fetus can be clearly considered to be on the verge of entering a phase of nervous system and brain development and declared in utero persona by a qualified physician. This is my general plan to address abortion in the plenarchy.

In a state where the death penalty exists, I believe it shows that the government of that nation views the people as property and not citizens. Capital punishment dehumanizes the society and by empowering the government to kill citizens for any reason desensitizes the state towards the people. And since the state acts as the prosecutor, the government has taken the role of overlord over both the survivors and accused who then must hope that justice will be served. This is no way for a civilized people who hold each other in high esteem to live. In my opinion, acceptance of capital punishment by a society suggests a brutish people and government.

A non-life jail sentence in the plenarchy is to be spent in solitary confinement. But I think for a life sentence given the long duration, a special jail with more social interaction would need to be provided. I have reasons to support solitary confinement for lesser crimes which I’ll save for a separate post. The sentence for a capital crime though would be life without parole. In addition, I believe that the convicted murderer should be given the option of choosing assisted suicide using a humane method at any time while serving the life sentence.

I also make a distinction between a life sentence for murder and other jail sentences for lesser crimes. The murderer does not go to jail as a punishment per se but rather to permanently remove him from society. This is meant as a remedy for the survivors of the victim and society-at-large to feel assured the murderer will never be walking free among them. I don’t agree with the practice of parole in general and argue for none in the plenarchy, but in the case of murder, there must be no parole. The price of murder is a life for a life. Other crimes are punishable with a stay in jail for some duration (in solitary confinement with no parole) then set free; not so with a capital crime like murder.

And as an aside, in the plenarchy the victims, and in the case of murder, the immediate family have the legal right to prosecute the trial if they so choose by hiring their own prosecutor, themselves acting as the prosecutor, or accepting a public prosecutor appointed by the court council. I am against the tradition of the state acting as the sole prosecutor of criminal trials because to me this means that in some perverse way, crimes are viewed as against the state and not the actual victims. That the prosecutor is primarily acting in the interest of the government and not the victim. And there is an expectation that somehow the prosecutor is to maintain neutrality although in practice, the prosecutors seem to be more interested in their political careers. If the victim is represented by their own advocate prosecutor, the victim can know they will be as vigorously represented in the court as the accused.

In the plenarchy, there is zero tolerance for polluting. Of course, there is a burden of proof required by anyone who would charge someone (or company) with causing pollution. If however, a victim can produce evidence of harm to person or property, the aggrieved would then file a complaint with the Justice Service. The complaint could also be a class action if many people claim to be victims of the pollution.

The plaintiff would testify in a court and present evidence of the harm caused by the pollution and the accused polluter would offer their defense. The court council would deliberate and make a ruling. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the nature of the damages would then influence the court’s decision. For instance, if only property damage is proven, then the court would likely order the polluter to provide restitution. If injury has been caused, the polluter would likely have to pay for medical treatment as well. But in the event of personal injury, the court would also have to decide if the polluter violated the non-aggression principle. If the court decides aggression occurred (most likely mens rea or polluting with the knowledge that the pollution could harm people), then the owner of the company might be looking at a prison sentence as well as financial penalties. If pollution is proven in addition to the remedy ordered by the court, the court would also be required to issue a cease and desist order. The polluter would then be required to stop polluting or face contempt of court charges and go to jail.

I think the plenarchy would be far tougher on polluters than any form of traditional government since it would be illegal to pollute other people’s property or body. In regulated societies, pollution is permitted by whatever amount the politicians and regulators allow and most likely those levels have been set by the polluter. Industry typically writes its own regulations and there will always be a revolving door between government and the regulated businesses.

Consider the practice of fracking. There have been charges made against the companies engaging in the practice that fracking is causing harm to people and property; that fracking is even potentially causing earthquakes. I won’t pretend to know much about the practice, but under the current government structure, politicians and regulators would have to intervene to stop the fracking yet these same people receive large sums of money to look the other way; politicians directly from lobbyists and regulators indirectly via the revolving door. In a plenarchy, once enough evidence of harm can be presented in the citizen-court that would show beyond a reasonable doubt that fracking is indeed harming people and property, a court order would shut down the practice and those harmed would receive restitution.

Another example how pollution might be handled in a plenarchy is taking the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. First, because the Gulf would be legally classified as a ‘common good’ in the Compact, BP would have to file a CUL (Common Use License) to drill. Any CUL filed with the Services could be challenged in court by opposition groups. But assuming the CUL is successfully defended by BP and the rig is installed and then explodes, anyone and everyone could file a complaint with the Justice Service. Most likely, the Justice Service would want this to happened as a class action. The court would likely issue a cease and desist order first requiring BP to stop the pollution which of course they would likely have already started. A likely outcome from a court proceeding would be that by court order, BP would have to restore the Gulf and assume all the cost to do so. BP would also be required to remedy lost income suffered by Gulf residents and businesses affected by the spill. And if there were any evidence that BP officials had foreknowledge of a high risk of failure, they might be considered to have a ‘guilty mind’ and thus be facing criminal charges. Given the spectacular scope of the disaster, the citizen court-council might require all such operations to end. If BP were to object to the court’s findings, they could appeal. The final ruling on appeal would stand.

It would also be possible in the plenarchy for citizens to act as regulators and by preemptively monitoring the emissions from a factory or plant and by determining chemical composition and knowing related health risks, place the owner on notice that if in the future any of these health conditions occur, that legal action will be taken and the victim will argue that the polluter has violated the non-aggression principle. What this would mean is that by notifying the polluter in advance of actual evidentiary harm, he now is officially knowledgeable of his actions and if he continues without reducing the toxins, could be facing criminal charges as well as paying financial damages. This method of preemptive action by a citizen could raise the stakes for a polluter and cause action to be taken to reduce emissions before damages actually occur since it would no longer be just a matter of paying damages. This could be a method of citizen-initiated regulation and would be perfectly legal in the plenarchy.

Below is a video describing PRT in Masdar City. I think their model is wrong (ground-based, wheeled, and in-vehicle propulsion) but this gives you an idea of what PRT is all about.

I dreamed up PRT independently in the 1990′s when trying to develop the next-gen transport mode to replace roads, only to discover then that others came before me going back to the 1970′s.

Essentially, the PRT is an Internet-like mode of transportation. Autonomous coaches carry passengers on mag-lev guideways like data packets are over the Internet.

Some of the benefits would be:

• Safe and efficient travel
• Automated control (no driving; no driver error or fatigue)
• Quiet (no engine or tire noise; maybe some wind noise)
• Dark (no lights other than cabin and running lights)
• Fast (speeds over 200 mph / 320 kph on express links)
• High capacity (single 60 mph / 96 kph guideway equal to 8 or more freeway lanes)
• Travel in all weather conditions
• On-demand (call coach from its storage facility)
• Environmentally friendly (elevated guideway to provide minimal impact)
• Expandable (stack levels to increase capacity)
• Traverses horizontal and vertical guideways
• No more pavement, parking lots or garages
• One coach can serve entire family; even multiple families
• Coach requires minimal maintenance and lasts for decades
• No driver insurance
• No oil; no gasoline (all electric)
• Children could safely travel alone (parental control to limit destinations)
• Construct guideways inside buildings for stations in offices, malls, etc.
• Speedy and comfortable long distance travel would make regional commercial flights unnecessary (can even stop where you want on way to destination)
• Cargo coaches could be used to ship goods point-to-point without a driver and serve as multi-modal containers

Imagine you live in St. Louis and want to travel to say the Ritz Carlton Hotel in San Fransisco (2000 miles / 3200 km). You go to your PRT platform at your house, call your coach, wait 10 minutes for it to arrive, coach arrives and doors open, you throw an overnight bag in and get comfortable, enter your destination on console, doors close, you sit back and do whatever you want for the next 10 hours in the privacy of your coach. You arrive at the Ritz and the coach takes you into the lobby, doors open and you’re met by the bell hop. No flights, no terminals, no rental cars. Night or day. Rain, snow or shine. Cool, huh? All the necessary technology exists right now to build PRT. The two biggest hurdles are capital investment and the government, of course.

There are many different PRT concepts that have been conceived over the years as the Wikipedia article describes, but I have ideas based on my previous study of PRT as to what I think the best arrangement should include.

Autonomous

The coach would be computer controlled to take passengers to their destination by the most efficient route; no driving is necessary. So for instance, the whole family would be able to travel to different destinations in the same coach on the same trip and everyone doing whatever they want; reading, sleeping, playing video games, watching a movie. Once the last passenger disembarks, the coach would then be returned to a storage facility waiting to be recalled. This also means that one coach would service an entire family or even multiple families who want to cost share.

Fixed elevated guideways

Although more costly than on-ground guideways, I think that the elevated guideway is important in keeping moving vehicles separated from people and animals. That by elevating the guideways, they can be constructed almost anywhere without disrupting the activities below. Almost no environmental impact. Animals migrate freely. Farming operations and other industrial uses can proceed under the guideway. Supports need to be protected.

Bottom-supported

I’ve seen a number of PRT concepts that suspend vehicles but I think this is not desirable. The main problem is that the coaches will swing and that limits the speed of the system. Suspended coaches will not be able to travel at high speed. Also, suspended coaches need taller supports which creates more visual clutter and I would think cost more in general.

Mag-lev propulsion

Magnetic levitation uses powerful electro-magnetic forces to levitate the coach. I believe this to be the best method of propulsion. First, it is efficient with little lost energy. Next, power can be supplied from multiple sources, providing for redundancy. Mag-lev is effectively computer-controlled. There would be no motor in the coach to breakdown. No physical contact with the rail causing wear or friction. No noise. And possible to reach very high speeds; coaches should reach speeds of 200 mph / 320 kph or more.

Network and computer-controlled optimization

PRT if built as an interconnected network would allow a computer to optimize demand on all the travel links. That means that regular travel between two point might not take the same route in a row depending on the current travel demand. The system would be constantly reassigning vehicle to links as conditions change.

Distributed storage hubs

The PRT system should store the coaches in hubs similar to parking garages. These would be multistory storage facilities to eliminate the need to store coaches on site. So, the PRT system would not require parking lots or garages at homes. The coaches would be automatically sent to the passengers on-demand when called. By eliminating the need for parking lots and garages, those spaces can then be used for other purposes. Think about your garage made into part of the home or a workshop. Or all surface lots in office parks and shopping centers turned into lawns or natural areas.

Private vehicles (including taxis)

Of course, a plenarchy is a non-intentional state where there are minimal state-owned lands and facilities. Naturally, the PRT system would be privately maintained. I do believe that there would be a benefit to people for private coach ownership as well as public taxis. If you have a private coach, you can keep it clean, customize the interior, etc. Public taxi coaches could always be available though for people who choose not to buy a coach or are not able to.

Cargo and passenger coaches

Cargo coaches can be specially designed container coaches that allow goods and items to be shipped. There would naturally be restrictions by weight and nature of goods placed in the container but this could be a very convenient means of sending items to destination.

Dynamic optimization

Computers can optimize the volume of coaches on each link. It would be possible then that a commute to work might take a different path each day of the week. If a travel link is shut down for maintenance or an emergency, then coaches would be automatically rerouted.

Fail-safe systems

The PRT system should have complete redundancy built into all critical systems such as power and computer control. I think it should also have its own power supply and not be dependent on the grid.

In the event of a sudden power interruption, the coaches should brake in a controlled fashion through resistance wheels perhaps. The disabled coaches might be stuck for a while until the system is brought back online.

Security

Obviously, such a system would need security measures in place. One thought is to make sure the computer control system is physically separated from the Internet. There might be a need to provide some Internet interface but that it should be separate from the actual control software.

The coaches could be turned into bomb-delivery devices, so measures would need to be installed to detect chemicals.

Sliding tables

A sliding table would allow coaches to be moved off the guideway for passenger and/or cargo loading. This would permit other coaches to continue without being blocked.

Light weight

The coaches should be as lightweight but strong as possible. I think an aircraft safety factor for materials and design would be sufficient. There should be no reason to design the coach for high speed collision like with a car. The lighter the coach, the less cost for guideways and other supports.

Horizontal and vertical directional support

The coaches should be designed to permit them to traverse vertical guideways as well as horizontal. This would permit the coaches to act as elevators so that the coach can travel to different floors of a multistory building.

Expandable

I think it would be possible to expand the PRT vertically by essentially adding an additional layer on top of the existing. This would result in essentially doubling the capacity of the travel link with minimal disruption and no need for additional land. The support columns could be designed to be extended upward a level and then the new guideway could be installed.

Power using thorium nuclear plants

The PRT system is electric and maybe could be powered by several thorium reactor plants providing an abundant and clean source of energy for the mag-lev guideways,

Weight limits

The coaches (passenger and cargo) would have built-in scales to ensure an over-the-limit coach doesn’t access the system. Each coach would have a sensor that would warn the user that the coach is over the limit. Just a guestimate, but I think the passenger coach could carry about 1,500 lbs (680 kg) and the cargo coach maybe 2,000 lbs (900 kg). I would think that the coaches even fully loaded would be able to enter upper floors of most buildings.

I have inserted a graphic below of a concept vehicle by Mirror Image Aerospace that might be similar to a PAT vehicle. I’m not endorsing their vehicle but citing it as the closest example of what I have in mind for PAT. I have in fact imagined more of an overhead ducted fan VTOL two-seater than what they are developing but I’m no aerospace engineer. The vehicle would land to pick up passengers on-demand and an onboard computer would allow the passengers to choose their destination. Flight would be autonomous; there would be no flight controls in the vehicle. When the vehicle needs fuel or maintenance, it would return to the service center automatically. In the event of malfunction, the vehicle carries an emergency chute or parafoil for a controlled decent. If the vehicle completely loses power, the chute would deploy for a simple decent.

I think a PAT system is inevitable at some point but I particularly like mag-lev personal rapid transit (PRT). Both systems would be great for a plenarchy.

Mirror Image Aerospace Skywalker (click image to visit their web site)