What still needs an answer

No. The manifesto formulates a normative framework, not an immutable constitution. Institutions must prove themselves in public practice, be documented and remain correctable.

Deluism shares socialism’s critique of exploitation and anarchism’s suspicion of concentrated power. The manifesto develops its own proposal from those traditions. Its value would have to be shown through its arguments; combining familiar ideas does not itself establish a better political order.

That would contradict the second principle. Community is emancipatory only when it protects personal rights, dissent, minorities and the possibility of withdrawal.

The model relies on transparent deliberation, justified majority decisions and reviewable procedures. Fundamental rights and minority protection limit every majority.

A limited mandate and the possibility of recall could help. They do not suffice if individuals withhold information or control access to decisions. How to limit those informal advantages effectively remains unresolved.

Local authority can accelerate many decisions by using knowledge where it arises. Crises allow limited coordination mandates, but speed cannot justify permanently uncontrolled power.

Initiative is not equated with private domination. People and guilds can begin projects, experiment and receive recognition. Common rules apply where decisions affect the work, resources or rights of others.

Political dissent is part of equal freedom. Convictions may not be compelled. A Deluist order would have to protect opposition, free speech, independent media and peaceful organisation.

No. Federal fundamental rights bind local majorities. Self-government does not make dignity, equality or protection from discrimination negotiable.

The exact design of justice, monetary and transition systems, digital infrastructure, international security and complex supply chains remains under development. Open questions are part of the public record.