A Magna Carta for Left and Right

We've most recently gone over some differences between left and right brain (1, 2), and drawn correlations between right brain and political left as well as left brain and political right. To start, I'd like to ask a question. How does anything go wrong in politics?

The Problem

I will presume that the subsystems of the human brain are good, and that the left and right brain are each good. These two have also been said to work best as a team. Herein, left and right brain are taken to lie at the root of what we call right and left, politically.

We can imagine the political right resembling the mind, inclusive of what is known, and what is even tried, tested, and true, and where this is our dominant concern, we'll be "getting ourselves in order". In the case of the political left, resembling the right side of the brain and what I call the human animal, this will be more like an exercise in personal liberty. What comes out of this place is liable to be new. For more perspective, the political right speaks from the structure of life (mental), whereas the political left speaks from the experience of life (physical). I find that between the two, we have the grand ontology of modern political architecture: laws and liberties; that pair which underlies "social contract", where in our politics we conduct a balancing act between the two.

In the big question (above), it is said that something has gone wrong in politics. I want to know what the mechanism for this is. Left brain is good. Right brain is good. How can something in politics go wrong? Perhaps I should give everyone a minute to see if they can come up with something.

I think the way to be wrong is to be incorrect, and the way to be right is to be correct, and that every one of us, whether left or right in persuasion, uses the thinking mind (in school), and may be held personally responsible, inclusive of what they know, for doing so. I think we should also maintain access to our feelings. It would appear that with left and right, we have pieces, whereas with an individual, we have everything.

What can happen in politics is to say something that just isn't true, and to act upon it (like Gulf War II). There has been much discussion on this site regarding a public awareness gap in the area of public authority. When such a gap exists, there may be mistruths in politics, and the people generally won't know better. What we know is where our gap lies, and it is where we find the mechanism for us being wrong in public affairs. It is to be incorrect, and we follow onto this by acting upon it anyways.

This is a public awareness problem. Thankfully, the democratic NGO proposed on this site is defined to task itself with documenting government injustices against us all (as followed by political action).

Nonpartisan Architecture: The Solution

Herein I will have to help and remind us that any elements of political architecture proposed on this site are nonpartisan. This includes things like districting, legislatures, and other offices for elected people. It includes being democratic and fair, with transparency and accountability, and none of it is partisan. It is proposed to be everything that is needed to fulfill the profoundly defined need.

In the first writing on this site, it is said that two words; "sufficient infrastructure", will entitle all that is needed to overcome all political problems. On this site, nonpartisan architecture in an independent NGO is proposed (to be amended at will). There is no capitalism, communism, or libertarianism. Ideologies remind me of "try", but not "do". "Sufficient infrastructure" sounds more to me like "do". When the public infrastructure is sufficient, then there will be an end to government crime, and when this happens, the American system will be used. There is no ideology in parliamentary procedure, and there is no ideology here. This architecture is proposed as an ongoing contribution to ending government crime.

I'll include its self-definition, or what it allows itself to do: "We define ourselves collectively as a voluntary, democratic organization, wherein; upon our government and its accomplices, we will monitor for and respond to collectively perceived injustices, and we may note and respond to their ill effects." Further into the proposition, 2/3 support is needed to pass claims of injustices, and 7/12 is needed to pass proposals for responses. Only universal, nonpartisan claims will be upheld. Note also that supporting evidence is central to this operation.

Current Affairs

There is the question of what is publicly important today. Is it true that left or right are important, or are the important matters more-so nonpartisan? Our modern society is replete with government offenses against us all. Building Communities - Part 1 makes a list of modern offenses, and Part 2 shows them all falling under one nonpartisan roof. We are all being offended in what I would call an us-Vs-them arrangement, as caused by being either within the central authority, or without.

Incidentally, there are times when the left and right can point out that something is wrong, such as what is so commonly wrong in a left-led agenda today. Here is a video from 1995 where Bill Clinton is standing on behalf of enforcing our immigration laws. I think such laws have existed around the world for a long time. When A 1995 Video Says It All!! (By Stand Your Ground America, 1 min). I would say that the left-leadership has played on people's ignorance on the existence and purpose of immigration laws.

Left and right sometimes align with the public truth, but were we fairly informed, I think we could act upon the truth as well. If we don't know our own laws, then I think we are at least not well-enough informed. I think there is a lack of context for border-related news when there is a lack of the existence or purpose of related laws. The US already has a regular, legal immigration rate of over a million people each year. This is before we get to any discussion on extra-immigration practices.

I call public injustice the nonpartisan cookie jar. Because it is full of universal injustices, either party can reach into it, and pull out an issue that their side can use. This jar flows over and consumes our public stage with its importance. It includes the government-backed subjugation and looting of the American people, and the people of the world, as led by transnational, private, corporate power. Here is an example of material I would add to nonpartisan public concerns, and for those who are interested: How US Big Tech monopolies colonized the world: Welcome to neo-feudalism (by Geopolitical Economy Report - Ben Norton, 40 mins)

One late addition to nonpartisan concerns appears to come with hurricane Helene. I'll include a few links on this; it includes a complete lack of federal assistance, and even opposition, while giving billions to Ukraine and Israel. Residents Screaming! Government Not Helping Hurricane-Devastated Areas! Jimmy Dore (12 mins) Oct 5, 2024 Helicopter Pilot THREATENED WITH ARREST For Rescuing Hurricane Victims! Jimmy Dore (11 mins) Oct 6, 2024 What Is Actually Going on in North Carolina? (Part 1) Truthstream Media (48 mins) Oct 5, 2024 (Part 2 78 mins)

I came across a philosopher on the matter of democracy, and I found things supportive of building communties being said: "Democracy Does Not Exist!" Cornélius Castoriadis (by Philosopheasy, 7 mins). I appreciate Castoriadis' concerns. At 2 minutes, he is quoted as saying, "democracy cannot exist without engaged, informed, active citizens". Along my lines, which breaks America down into local self-governing districts, at 2:44 it says, "Central to the Athenian experiment, they used sortition: instead of elections, they used a lottery system to appoint citizens to government positions". They did this locally, and they felt anyone who could vote could hold a government position. I found the related thoughts worth consideration. I would begin with local, self-governing communities, and then network them together, via a national assembly (falling within one definition, as above).

To Sum

Herein; the problem, the solution, and the most important issues of our day have all been shown to be nonpartisan.

The reason for calling this article a Magna Carta was to include saying that with this evidence, one has signed an agreement, wherein universal, nonpartisan concerns in all aspects of the current political reality are given notice. [edit-add: Partisan proposals will not survive.] To be in keeping with history, I think we can have an American revolution to the extent that we remain nonpartisan about it.

As an aside, Ricky Jervais appears to be going off on left and right these days. Ricky Gervais Notices Something About Free Speech That You Need To Hear On Both Sides (BALR, 11 mins)

For this site: Complete Introduction to Building Communities includes a reading list.