Since the Franchulate proposal presented by TOPGenosse came before the RA today (much to my surprise), I've attempted to shift into gear and study it. I will confess that the concept and implementation of the franchulates has always been a bit of a mystery to me, so this is my chance to attempt to grapple with it.
As I understand it, the concept of the franchulate is this. The CDS will own, by purchase, a certain amount of mainland land. Citizen "holders" of franchulates will rent parcels of that land from the CDS. By agreeing to rent parcels on this land, the citizen holder agrees to the framework of government imposed as a citizen of the CDS.
If this, indeed is the overall definition of the franchulate, then the act itself is very confusing. Let's examine what "parcel ownership" means on the mainland.
There are two ownership modes. (1) An individual owns the land, and pays tier to LL. (2) A group owns the land, and together, the group members contribute portions of their individual tier levels, which through their separate accounts they pay to LL separately.
The actual bill seems uncertain about which of these two ownership modes would apply. If in fact (1), then the EO of the CDS does indeed own the land and does indeed collect actual rent from the "citizen holders". The authority of the CDS is then expressed in the fact of ownership by the EO, somewhat analygous to the expression of authority on a private island through the power to "Reclaim". The *only* person subject to LL tier is the EO... all payments by citizen holders would be rent in the form of cash, paid to the EO.
Or, if in fact (2), then the fact that "ownership will be transferred to the EO of the CDS" is quite meaningless. A group is composed of many members, each with various authorities, and any of which can contribute tier for the monthly amount due to LL. While it is true that various catagories of authorities can be set up in the group, it is also true that the land is actually held by the group itself. It is not at all clear how the authority of the CDS is expressed (at least to me). The EO, *as an individual*, has no different a role than anyone else in the group, and therefore seems to me quite unnecessary.
In this situation, the current individual owner need only "Deed to Group" the land in question. The members of that group then share the tier to cover monthly payments to LL. The EO is not involved. And, it seems to me, the only connection with the CDS is the voluntary commitment on the part of the members of the group to submit to the authority of the CDS, buttressed by the escrow deposit. There is no "rate" set by the RA, as proposed, since there is no flow of funds from the citizen holders to the CDS Treasury. The group members are contributing tier. There is no financial relationship to the CDS at all (except for the transmission of the escrow amount).
These issues seem completely unresolved in the framework provided by the current franchulate law. I apologize that I have not made these comments before... the bill and the discussions that ensued in the RA last year left me quite muddled, and I determined to try and understand them when actual implementation came up, which it now has.
It is also *entirely* possible, maybe even probable, that I am just not understanding the mechanism of what is an entirely reasonable system. It's for this reason that I'm starting this thread, so that people who do understand it can explain it more clearly.
Sudane.....