(Preface, skip if you are familiar with the model of a Council Government
proposed here) It has been clear since centuries to many scholars and
writers, how "Parliament" is an insufficient system of Governance, due
to the corruptability of the elected people (which is also an expression
of the lying, thieving, ignorance and evil of that Nation its people as
a whole). The model of electing someone for 4 years, and giving a group
a mandate to more or less do as they please, leaves too many openings
for bribery and selfish profiteering.
The historical solution proposed to this problem has generally been:
the Council Government model (for lack of a better name). The idea is
that people form groups small enough, to keep effective control over
their representative, allowing them to immediately remove and replace
their representative, for example when the representative is starting
their scams. The model allows a closer connection between the elected
and the people. It removes national bottlenecks of power. It allows
people to casually grow into the business of Governance, without the
need to beg the forces of evil for their blessings (aka the super rich,
who tend to control the mass propaganda systems with all their many
scams and nefarious control mechanisms, following their pathetic
and disgraceful childish/monkey need to forever control more).
The National ballot, the National political Party top, the national
propaganda (mass media), these are bottlenecks of power in the
Parliamentary system. A District model of Parliament does not solve the
problem either, because a District of for example 40 000 persons is
already massive and incomprehensible for an human being. A Council
Government model is looking at election circles in the size of a hundred
persons. On below linked website a model has been worked out which
proposed election circles of only 50 persons. Even this circle is
can be constituted of (less formal) smaller circles of for example 10
or even less. For every circle an internal administrator is first
elected, and then a representative, and a reserve representative (these
may not be the same person).
The Representatives form Councils also by a minimum of 50, at which
amount they are a local Government over a certain area of land, acting
like we are now used to from our local Governments, or somewhat more
casual than that due to their small size. This article is not about how
the structure develops upwards to larger sizes, so look elsewhere for a
discussion of that.
Dealing with unruly/childish people
Let's say you are living in a small village of 200 persons, and you wish
to pursue this model of Governance for some reason, however your people
are unruly, disinterested, will run around wildly during any large
meeting, people speaking will generally not be listened to while the
families continue with the hustle and bustle of their lives with each
other (in other words, happy Jewish people sitting in a Synagogue ? ;-).
At least I have heard it can be quite unruly, but in a fun way.
There seem to be various scenarios which can play out.
One scenario is that it just falls apart before it even organizes, the
plan is ditched and forgotten.
Another scenario is that it all works smoothly, and people learn to make
their common decisions together this way.
Another scenario is that it falls apart, but someone with enough clout
puts their foot down and forces the whole group to comply with the
model. The question now becomes: is this the model, or is this the
opposite of the model, is it now a dictatorship in the guise of a
Council Government. Is this person who had the clout to do it, doing a
good thing ? If he had the clout to do it, can the people within the
model still have a useful experience within the model ? This probably
depends on the person who has this power, if it is a good person or a
bad person, socially competent and understanding, or less so.
It is interesting to note that the Parliament first came about as
an advisory organ to the King, and has later deposed the King. The
Parliament, despite its failings, has proven to be much better (in
my opinion) than a Monarchy. The corruption and evil committed by the
Kings and Tyrants (often the same thing) is probably the low point in
human history. (Don't forget that in the Nations as they now exist, the
Parliament is not the most powerful Government; the super rich Plutocracy
are competing with the Parliament for power, and often are superior over
it, which is something which worsens in time due to the bad economics of
the Nations of the world, including Israel who has overthrown their Torah
of Moshe Rabbeinu already for thousands of years).
Perhaps it could be concluded that, so long as you have a good person
for this role, such as a respected village elder or group of village
elders, likely a person who already had a lot of power, it is acceptable
if you organize the Council Government model under that(those) person(s)
its(their) power and influence, for the sake of avoiding the total chaos
of the model. The moment you end up with a bad person in this powerful
role, you just stop listening to them/him(her). This is a repeat of
the experience with Monarchy and Parliament, just on a smaller scale
and with a more democratic model in the role of Parliament (another
hopefully better version of it).
Another scenario is that you do not have anyone who can organize the
model on a larger scale, or a bad person who should be deposed by such a
model and should not be asked to organize it lest he would use that
system to make his bad governing even worse. Now you are faced with
chaos from the people, and evil from the top, which is probably one of
the more difficult situations to be in. You can of course try to become
the benevolent dictator yourself, but we assume here that this is not
the scenario for some reason (that scenario was already discussed above).
I think it may be the smartest thing to just go to people individually,
and ask them if they would like to participate in a possibly minority
organization (the word "minority" here just means a numerical minority
within an undefined or homogeneous group of people). While the
organization might have as its ultimate aim to deal with common decision
making issues (such as: to build a bridge for common use, should a
dangerous tree branch be cut or not, what do we do about the dangerous
crossing in town, to organizing help for the needy, etc etc, anything
common and of interest to all (decent/normal) people), you do not
have the right to start with a claim to have such powers exclusively if
you are a minority (unless you are the largest so aimed organiation
perhaps, with the largest support among the people of all such
organiations). You can however start doing good. You can avoid making
any claims. Just do good, and that's it. You are there to be good, and
to do good.
That is all that is required. The common interest is a good, which in
many cases can be helped by individuals and small groups who jump into
a need out ofd their own initiative. Even if you sooner or later can
claim exclusive rights to common decision making (example: our system
and people want to put the bridge at point A, but you others wish to
put the bridge at point B, and we don't have the money or need for two
bridges), you can often still try to avoid bringing the power question
to a head with others who have taken up similar roles for the common
interest. Where it becomes difficult to live side by side, you can then
debate the matter of the decision making itself in a particular matter,
and if necessary resort to a Rerefendum.
Referendums are its own (big) problem of course, which will also not be
discussed here. They can be quite manipulative. It should be done with a
lot of care and thinking. Who is voting, who is counting, are all votes
of equal value (compare: persons now living on the build site of a
future bridge versus people living further away and rarely crossing the
river, etc). Will everyone who pays have an equal vote, will everyone
pay the same amount, will everyone benefit the same amount ? I wonder if
you can debate for years all the details of just a simple bridge and how
to decide upon it, and still not manage to reach a solid conclusion on
how to resolve the matter.
At least you have an excuse to get together for a talk and a laugh. I
imagine that eventually the pressure of a need will force a debate to
some kind of a result. Needless to say, it is usually best to set up
some rules of the decision making (for example, vote), after which
everyone agrees that if the procedures are followed, all will accept the
decision and move on, support the decision made in practice even though
they may stay against it in thought and word, and not work against the
decision.
An exception to such a rule will obviously have to be, if the decision
constitutes an evil, which needs to be resisted on principle and at all
cost. However in such cases, you cannot agree to any procedure to
resolve a matter already. You cannot say "We will allow the never
cancelling of loans for the poor in our village¹ if some majority of
votes is in favor of doing that, because it constitutes an evil upon the
poor". If this isn't a clear enough form of evil, insert something
worse. Then you do not submit to the procedure, and won't accept an
outcome of others going ahead with the procedure anyway, and you don't
support them in it, perhaps even will go against them, or leave them, or
force them to leave (etc). In a democratic sense, this is the right to
assembly. You have the right to assemble as a group of people who wish
to live a certain way. Others who want to live differently have the same
right, and both need to do it in different places. If the differences
are small, you can stay in the same Nation. If the differences are
large, you have to form different Sovereignties, and live in different
areas (who have a reasonably coherent shape of borders, which likely
requires many people moving their place of residence).
Why bother ?
Because we are human beings. We are supposed to grow up, and become nice
friendly people, who support each other, even though we live in our own
houses, have our own private lands, gardens, and organize our work alone
or with others as we see fit.
Because the Kings have betrayed us.
Because the rich have betrayed us.
Because the priests have betrayed us.
Because it seems, heaven sends us traitors and evil people with a
cunning, a will and an ability to centralize power in their hand,
perhaps as if they are giving us this challenge: live together as people
who can speak, understand and decide together, so that you will all grow
in these roles of responsibility and being part of the greater decisions
being made and the work proceeding from them, be friendly and have an
ear to hear, because you are good enough for this. We have seen that you
are able to do it, if you wished to do so, if there was a need. This is
the signal we send you, this is the need we provide for you: if you
continue to act as children, continue to not care for the common good,
we shall send you a punishment in the form of a King. While he shall
discipline you and open your ear to his commands for his own amuzement,
we are disciplining you and opening your ear, so that you will hear each
others need, and act to help your fellow, and open your eyes to the
needs of all. Such will be your world, when you achieve it. Beautiful,
dynamic, alive. Live it, and be free, your share of heaven. Enjoy !
This way, you can eradicate the evil and the folly from between you, so
that people will no longer cry, or at least not as much as they do now.
Why bother now ?
Because the silly humans have nukes and the evil Tyrants, greedy super
rich and other criminals will never stop developing more weapons of
destructing and Tyranny. It is going too far. It has to be stopped ...
NOW. (I should say "today", to stay in the mold of things, I guess. ;-)
Technically there can always be more time, but how many full out nuclear
wars and for now incomprehensible high technological Tyrannies can
humanity and the world its nature suffer, before things are damaged
beyond repair, and what does that even mean ? Can humanity go extinct ?
How will we feel when the elephants die out, or half the whales, or if
whole Continents are depopulated and Billions of people die ? What does
high technological tyranny mean, will it be hell on Earth ? Can it be
anything else than that ? Why should we suffer it, why should we risk it ?
Isn't it clear by now that we do not need more war, more Tyranny ? We
act now, we can safe a lot, and spare ourselves and others a lot of
pain.
That is why you should bother now, as if it is an urgency, because it is
an urgency of the highest order (in my opinion). Those who doubt, I
doubt they will still doubt this after they see the next full scale war
and Tyranny take shape, which is already developing.
We have this before us: the path to heaven and paradice, and the path
to hell and death. The path to friendlyness and common decision making
by good well behaved people, while each also has their own houses and
lives, and the path to slavery to the Tyrants where many if not all
things are pulled into an unbearable extreme.
Humanity pretends for now they do not make a choice, but they watch TV
and they follow the newspapers, and that is voting for evil, voting for
the war, voting for the propaganda. While it is not all evil or lies
what they do, it seems to be a precisely callibrated mix of truth (a
lot) with lies (enough) and ommissions (the most horrible omissions), to
keep their power going and to serve their long term schemes of war and
(global) Tyranny. The people think they do good by following the mass
media, and that's just another lie also told to them by the same mass
media, owned by the super rich and greedy, the people so rich that
having that amount of wealth itself implies evil. People pretend to
themselves they do good, while in a strategic long term sense, they
support and further the worst (global nuclear war, and whatever may come
after). There is also many levels of smaller selfish choices made by the
masses, such as their obsession with cars, destructive forms of
vacation, etc). While nothing much seems to be happening usually, on the
whole it seems to be going down.
This means that if you do not want to go down morally with humanity, you
will have to oppose the majority, and be different from them, care more,
and so on. One way you can be better and different, which might still
not be good enough, is to organize a Council Government on some kind of
level. It is an effort to combat the corruption and evils committed by
Governments, including Parliament, in particular their abuse of
mandates. While one person can do a few things, people together are much
more effective, and therefore it matters a lot, perhaps everything, how
the common decisions are being made.
It doesn't have to go perfect, but eventually it will if you keep
trying, either by becoming able to operate a system like this, or to
finetune it or find out an even better way to do things, or both. So
long as the effort is there, eventually it should lead to a result.
Funny enough, even being a good slave can be part of an effort of
becoming a free person, if you are being taught discipline, if you gain
skills, learn to follow a command. Slavery however, I do not believe
that this is itself an eventual goal for a human being. It can be a
phase, to something greater: a free person, willing and able to do good,
growing all the time in wisdom and happiness. The great adventure of
life: it has only just started !
;-)
When *they* who chose evil, either by evil or by ignorance, see their
world go down, those not part of their evil, or those activities who
went against the evil of Governments (such as war), may gain a new
appreciation in the eyes of the people in general. If there is no
alternative presently being lived, there is no effect like that. The
masses will likely just shrug their shoulders at another
incomprehensible plan (in their view), another boring book, another set
of demands they don't even want to know about, and they will continue
with what they have been doing before, with new illusions and the same
consequences, because it will probably be more of the same as usual,
suggested to them by the usual people with the money to do so.
If you don't want to bother, then don't, and be part of a species going
down in general. This culture is too insane, stupid, greedy and evil to
be stable. It cannot last. The plunder of nature, the carelessness
regarding the poor, the paying debt with debt on the highest level, the
disinterest in war, corrupt medicine, corrupt Academia, more or less
completely distracted mass population, selfishness everywhere, not
caring to understand everywhere, not willing to act for the common good
unless paid (a lot) of money everywhere, idiotic religions such as the
western idolatry from Rome still raging as if nothing happened ...
although some good is happening, and huge illusions about how good this
society is seem to exist, I do not believe that this society is even
nearly good enough to be stable. The economic system is also very
unstable due to markets in land, dictatorship companies everywhere,
limitless accumulation of wealth, and selfish parasitic profiteering
from loans in whatever form. Societies like this have died before, or
went through great upheavals which basically meant their end. While this
society is technological like nothing before it to a unbelievable
degree, it seems that this power will worsen both the side of the good
and the side of the evil, and therefore it might make a collapse even
worse than usual (unknown I guess).
That is why you cannot wait with taking care of society and making sure
the good wins in everything. We already couldn't wait due to the human
suffering, but now the danger is probably much higher. If you do
nothing, let me know how you are doing to get rid of a Tyrannical system
which is using all modern technology plus what they will still develop.
Why risk it, why wait, why do nothing ? You already are doing enough ?
Maybe you are, but if there was a large enough amount of people who
where doing good enough, they should be able to take care of themselves
in a good way already, but I do not see that anywhere on Earth. That
doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but if it exists, it is as small as above
mentioned village of 200 persons; perhaps one here and another there,
and that is all. If that is all we can do, than at least we should do
that.
With whom to do this model ?
Personally, I think it is usually best for kind to search for kind, for
similar people to organize with similar people. It is already hard
enough to agree on anything, and if you start combining people who
have diffirent cultures, beliefs, want to do different things, have
different goals and so on, you probably make the very difficult into
something completely impossible. Where to put the line: I don't know.
You could argue that if you have too much trouble doing this, camps
break out who constantly oppose each other, then you all know enough:
splitting may be better. Live apart, live and let live.
If you are doing fine and agree a lot with each other, even though you
are organized separately, then you can start thinking of merging.
This may be important to keep in the back of your mind: failure is not
the end, it is merely a step to learning and adapting, then continuing
on in a better way. To fail is to learn, and thus you don't fail, you
grow in wisdom and understanding. The trick is to stay motivated, I
guess, and one way to stay motivated is to understand how important a
certain effort (skill) is, or would become. Because there is always
tomorrow (well, usually there is), it is important to not break out in
harsh words with each other. A strong disagreement is not necessarily
the end. If you split, you still need to live well together as good
neighbors, and perhaps work together on something else. Who knows what
will still happen.
*
This is what I propose you do, on the matter of the common decision
making (Government). Once you get all this done already, you can make it
bigger. It can encompass a Nation of millions of people. Keep in mind
though that this is not going to be enough to solve the problems of this
society. The economy (and likely many other issues) also need dealing
with urgently. Once you have the Governing power brought to heel though,
you can bring that power to bear upon other major topics (such as the
problem of markets in land ownership in perpetuity, which is a
fundamental mistake of humanity in general at this point).
From the other side also: if you bring the economy to order somehow,
your new found honor as a (distributive) land owner might bring you into
association with other people with the necessary adulthood to be there
in that position, and from there you can again set up such a system of
common decision making as outlined here (and elsewhere). Now that you
are coming from such a background and serious issue of land ownership
and understanding how to deal with it, the setting up of a common Governing
structure might proceed more easily. Solving one problem helps solving
other problems.
I think the biggest thing is to keep going, to not give up, rather than
to try to force the issue in one sudden and shortlived explosion of
effort and power. This also because we ourselves are not that good, and
the time we spend upon perfecting things like these is the time we are
improving ourselves and our ability to even live in a happy world of
justice, truth and peace. "It isn't so much about the falling, it is
about the getting up; again, and again, until you fall no more."
Thusly we can suffocate out of existence the evil in the world, wipe the
tears from the crying faces, look forward with hope, and be alive (as a
culture and a species at least), forever.
Anti climactic ? Because you didn't experience the consequences yet.
"All things come slowly." (Dutch proverb, FWIK). It comes slowly, you
have to learn it, adapt to it, deserve it, work for it. Then some day,
you realize you are living in paradice, and you didn't even notice when
it happened. The birds sing, the grass grows, and you are alive and
happy, with a personally small but personally big future ahead of you,
*your future*. Not some mindless gaping at a grandiose King or Palace,
but you putting your head down on a soft pillow in the evening, knowing
all is well. Anti climactic ?! If you call it that, I'll take it, you
fools.
lol
-- Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl
Council Government: Dealing with unruly (childish) people ±200