I've often described silverlande, but recently read a book which demolishes some of my ideas for how to organize law. The book is "Jennifer Government" by Max Barry. I thought it was excellent on some levels, and lacking on others, but I'm recommending it since I think it had more of the former characteristics than the latter. It's basically a near-future story about what happens if corporations gain too much power. It's self-published, but in this day and age that still means you get decent binding and cover art (actually, the cover art is strangely sexy, even though it's very simple).
I had watched a _really awesome_ documentary called "The Corporation" a year ago which _should_ have demolished my ideas in the way this book did, but somehow I managed to think my ideas would rise above the problems caused by corporation in the modern United States. I'm thinking now that I was pretty much wrong - if you give too much freedom, you will quickly lose that freedom to an economic slavery. I now stand unsure how to balance these factors.
A lot of my ideas - I think like most utopian dreams - work if and only if applied to a small colony of like-minded individuals. In reality, population grows and diversification leads to predators who demolish the societal ideal.
I still stand by one aspect of silverlande -- the idea that people are dependents until or unless they pass the adulthood criterion (perhaps a test, but it would difficult to create a proper test with proper objective judging. but in any case, not "merely" an age requirement). While people are dependents, their guardians (by default their parents) are _fully_ responsible for the actions of their dependents. Once the adulthood criterion is passed (at any age), all responsibilities and privileges are granted - there is no legal difference between "adults" of any age.
I also still believe in something which I have thought for a while, but which is only indirectly related to my "silverlande utopia" ideas. I still believe we need a new Constitution which has stronger protection of certain rights -- some things The Forefathers thought were obvious are being disputed in court, and some things they thought are no longer applicable in a planet of billions.
I still remember with horror the day I lost connection to my "cousin" (by my Aunt's marriage. "cousin-in-law"? I dunno) because she advocated voting based _purely_ on party lines, without regard for the character of the candidate or the platform the candidate proposed. I was frightened by such thought. I mean, I knew such people existed, but I always thought they were stupid sheep. But here was and adult person, whom I had previously judged as not-stupid then proposing that very scary view of voting. As if parties never change. As if the very party she was supporting weren't significantly different 30 years ago than it is today (the Republicans used to have a point - smaller, less intrusive government. now they are _frightening_ when it comes to personal freedom).
I remember a country that was founded on personal freedom, and founded on an ideal that people were _required_ to question their government as part of Patriotism and part of support of the government. I remember an ideal that the government simply _could not function_ without continual oversight by the populace.
...ugh... I think I'm straying from my original post about silverlande. perhaps time to stop typing :)