Building Communities 2 of 3
Common Cause - Definition
Part 1 Part 3 is now the Complete Intro
II. Common Cause and Definition
In November, 1772, Samuel Adams established Committees of Correspondence across the area of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In March, 1773, Thomas Jefferson and others established the same in Williamsburg, Virginia, this time to be distributed across the 13 colonies. I think their message is much the same, in that their natural rights were violated by the government, which violated the purpose of government. In each case, they stated grievances, and their right to abolish the government. From the Declaration of Independence (of 1776):
..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"…
I would like to look at our government as what the American founders have given to us. I think it is an improvement over that which preceded it. In the Declaration of Independence, 27 grievances are listed. "From the consent of the governed"... I think it is safe to say that our law and government are shared by us, and as such, this is what we may say has wronged us all. I would add that I find government to hold a unique title to its height of rules and enforcements as a height shared by none other, by way of which we can say that if we secure good government, then it may be supportive to us with any other matters that we feel we need to deal with.
As an example of common cause, a man is elected as a US senator, and he decides that he has the power to walk around and shoot people, if he finds it amusing. Does this behavior serve the interests of the liberals or the conservatives? I think neither will claim it. The reason for this is because of a universal presumption of this being wrong. We don't prefer it variously. Really, if the government is breaking the law, or committing (obvious) immoral acts, then we are entering an area of politics which falls outside of any partisan concerns. These are matters of universal presumption, and I think that the senator's policy should be taken as a matter of universal concern.
Common Architecture
On the matter of universal, democratic architecture, I will quote from The Nonpartisan Principle (regarding voting and elections), by constitutional law professor Richard E. Levy; “Rules, requirements, or practices whose purpose and effect is to skew the electoral process to the advantage of one candidate, faction, or party are fundamentally inconsistent with the premise of democratic elections.” The structure for elections is regarded as universal.
And now let us use the example of dividing a nation into equal-population districts, and putting forth a delegate from each, and calling that a national legislative assembly (which is being done in over 100 countries today). This is nonpartisan architecture. It is logical. It is democratic. It is generic. For all of these reasons, it is universal. I will propose that by adding universal architecture, we may endeavor to stand for common justice, and overcome common problems. As we'll see, common cause may be found by democratically requiring higher percentages of support to pass propositions of government injustice.
Architecture for Government Injustices
As an independent, voluntary, democratic organization, we could come together under a common definition. We could say that we will monitor for and redress what we collectively agree to be government injustices, and we may protect ourselves against threats caused by them. I think that a “government injustice” may include any of the following: an action, negligence (not doing their job), creating or using an unjust law, violations of rights, violations of laws, and violations of our common morality. Here is a picture of a place, in America, for such an organization:
In this picture, there is a centralized, public watch upon a central law and government. This watch falls into the fourth estate, i.e. the estate of the “free press”, or our modern media and press, and with it, people can go off to their families and careers, and we will make it our business to stay and watch the government, and provide the public with a current picture of government justice, by our use of universal, democratic method. Adding an independent, democratic watch contributes to the robustness of our public system overall.
The picture above might help to bring out that the fourth estate is essential to our public infrastructure. Somebody has to watch the government. There will still be related contemporary and partisan news and concerns, but we will be confined to our own area, requiring a high percentage of support to uphold any claims of government wrongdoings.
What I hope we can see in these pictures is that when we make a central government, we architecturally presume that everybody will be watching it, at all times, but the central structure is now sophisticated enough to include many full-time careers that only government people directly do. We need somebody to make more of a job out of watching them. I believe that since the fourth estate is all privately owned, we will be needing a democratically owned and operated organization to keep a worthy judicial watch upon our government.
“We” See Alternative News
I spent some time looking at media and audience sizes, and I came to find considerable variability in what people polled call “alternative news”, which is also in the fourth estate. For example, some viewers think Kieth Olberman is alternative news in relation to Rachel Maddow. Herein, “alternative news” is going to be narrowed in scope to: news of government injustices, of their accomplices, and of those who are negligent in their duty to respond (- I think of these as extended accomplices). And so, whether by their action or inaction, they are involved.
There appears to be tens of millions of Americans today who consume what I call alternative news. I know what it is like to want people to see my evidence, and I think this is what people here struggle to do. This method publishes its evidence with accountability and transparency, and accumulates public support this way.
The alternative news audience possesses awareness of contemporary political problems. As such, I think of this as a generally good pool for recruiting. I might try to find out what a person calls news, for consideration as a potential recruit.
Parliamentary Procedure as Democratic Method
Our government uses parliamentary procedure at all of its levels. Legislatures, councils, and committees at city, state, and national levels keep their own such rules. The US House, for example, has over 1,500 pages of parliamentary rule. To more fully understand democracy comes with popping open the hood and seeing all of the workings inside. This includes the ways of the internal proceedings in a democratic assembly.
From the Wikipedia: “Parliamentary procedures are the accepted rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings of a (deliberate) assembly or organization.”... “in 1774, Edmund Burke described the British Parliament as a "deliberative assembly" … a body of persons meeting to discuss and determine common action.”... “Robert's Rules is the most widely used manual of parliamentary procedure in the United States. It governs the meetings of a diverse range of organizations—including church groups, county commissions, homeowners associations, nonprofit associations, professional societies, school boards, and trade unions—that have adopted it as their parliamentary authority.”...
The approach herein is applied at the (local) community level to begin with, and to become organized nationally in the end. Groups in local communities can use applicable parliamentary procedure to hold democratic meetings, make offices and committees, and to amend their bylaws, with respect to Robert's Rules (and here).
There is a learning curve to becoming a parliamentarian, and I would recommend that at first a group proceed more informally, until they feel that they have, for example, confidence in a meeting chairperson (and secretary), to get (larger) formal meetings through to their ends. More informally, a group can learn about parliamentary procedure together. More informally, if everyone is present and at least 2/3 agree to something, then I would just amend it. This article states what rules we need to remain in keeping with, to fit in with the common collective.
(This section covers ground gone over in the “Complete Intro”)
Communities
This is a local, community-based approach to building a national collective. It begins with forming local communities, as followed by merging them into national districts (corresponding to the US federal districts). A network of such equal-population districts can then be used to produce a national legislature.
The idea of a community is to be local within itself for people getting together. In much of the country, these are expected to begin within local driving distance. Due to the demands of equal-population districting, more sparsely populated areas will have to cover more ground in each jurisdiction. Very densely populated areas will be able to have more people in their immediate area.
Communities can geographically overlap, because they can create themselves without knowing of each other. When they do find one another, they can merge relatively easily, because of how close they are.
Districts will have wards, and each district will have its own legislative assembly of one delegate per ward. Communities will dissolve into districts, but more local groups will come back again at the ward level. In some district cases, I would consider amending a “territory”; or a group of wards with offices and functions in its own geographical area, such as to have a rally point, or run a teleconferencing node (for district meetings). At this point, a ward or territory may seem much like what a community was.
It's Made of Districts
In 1791, US federal districts averaged 30,000 people each, and the average state numbered 300,000. Today, the average district is 710,000 (or about 24 times larger), and the average state is 6.6 million (or 22 times larger). At 38 million, California is 126 times larger. I think the real problem with today's states is that they are not local (and neither is TV, or as discussed, many other modern things). In today's politics, we are more distant in relation to our elected leaders, but with the approach herein, we will remain more local and connected.
Our local communities have waned tremendously. I find local participation to be more architecturally robust, as it maintains strong connections to the grassroots (individuals), and robust districts can be used to build a robust national structure.
The US has a federal, equal-population grid of 436 districts (including 1 for D.C.), and we can use this grid to produce our national assembly. In urban areas, these districts are often within driving distance within themselves. For the more sparsely populated areas, teleconferencing nodes can be set up, to hold unified district meetings across two or more physical locations. For us, using a 1% membership figure, we would have excellent representative-to-represented ratios, and each is quite local to the other. Note: 1% is used for architectural ballparking only, and would be about 6,000 members/district on average.
Once a district has been formed, the communities which created it will have merged, but the district will also be divided into (at least) 12 wards. This is a minimum number for public trust purposes, since the general assembly of a community is being replaced by its legislative assembly. The general membership will still vote on (legislators and) district bylaw amendments, and each member will only do what they volunteer to do.
In Part III, we will see how city-, county-, and state-level implementations work. Any such offices or instruments may be amended by the relevant districts. The districts, which are said to be local and robust, constitute the entire map in this unicameral system, and all other types of US jurisdictions are recognized.
These districts are our equivalent of US states, in that they are bylegally autonomous and self-governing. By US population figures, districts are on average a little over twice the size of 1791 states, and with sufficient membership and structure, herein a district is architecturally regarded as democratically robust, and worthy of trust in its self-governance. For a district, I would be satisfied with open membership, about 150 people, and a legislature. 1 in 1000 (US voters) would include about 600 members, which I think would be broadly regarded as more than enough (to be robust).
We can think of public trust as being based upon the number and type of parties involved. We could have a number of regular adults, or certain parties which are trusted in more specific capacities, who then come together in achieving some greater common trust. Then next factor I would add to this trust figure is the method that we use, as a multiplier of the number and type of parties involved. The method used is to operate in a fully democratic manner, with all related transparency and accountability, like the government. At this time, we can be democratic, and with our success, they can be democratic too.
A National Network and Assembly
Districts, communities, and even members have a basis for recognizing each other, as legitimately being what they say that they are. As we'll see, when the first 3 districts come to recognize each other, they can commence a national network of districts, and add new districts to the network from there. When 3/4 of US districts have joined the network, one delegate from each may commence operation as a national assembly.
Part III (Building Communities) will include the details of each step of creation, from local, self-made communities, to districts, to national, with basic bylaws. The intention herein is to create starting rules which are as logical, generic, democratic, and as universal as possible, and to leave out anything which is not needed at the start. These unwritten areas are left open to respect a place for people to arrive first, before saying exactly how they would like their rules to be, and they are always amendable. What is written herein is intended to fullfill minimum requirements for succcessfully bringing this development to the point of forming a national assembly.
(end of section)
Revisiting Common Cause
Democratic method is best fed by common cause. It occurs to me that without a definition, we could simply proceed with the support of 2/3 (as in democratic assemblies). We could say that we want to do something nice, such as to raise chickens right.
Law and government make matters common. We could say that we want to use the government as a way to raise chickens right. Getting 2/3 sounds difficult, because this idea is entering into a large world of preferences, and we will not think the same. We have people raising chickens, and doing countless other things, without having to require or gain community support. Any such endeavor should be comprised of its own willing participants.
When matters of the public; of government and law, create a truly refined common cause for us, it is because it is a public wrong. Common cause is the most ideal real-world situation for fueling a democratic response.
For matters where we are free, we may branch off endlessly; for matters where we are trapped, we may come to find unavoidable common cause. Our existential plight can raise the share of us who would choose a common path. To create a common security concern, or to create common losses, would seem to join in with such an existential plight.
Revisiting Parliamentary Procedure
Using parliamentry procedure, When people are having a meeting, a member might say, “I move to refer this item to a (new) committee (of so many), etc...”. The reason for this is because it's too much of an item to be done with in a meeting. What also happens in these procedures is that what begins as a motion to amend can develop into motions to amend the motion. I see this as breaking up a larger proposition into component parts. For our common purposes, I would first break down what we all want to do (democratically) as follows:
1) Statements of government wrongdoing.
2) Responses.
A wrongdoing can cause additional problems. Now we may be in a good positon to take one step further, and say that we face problems that have been caused by the wrongdoing(s). If we do not have a case for government wrongdoing, then I think we have gotten outside of our original mandate.
Problems caused by government wrongdoing may bring us to act together, for example when due legal recourse appears to be an option, but also in the conduct of political recourse. In relation to our original mandate, for picking up one step in indirection, I will refer to these as auxiliary types of amendments:
1b) Statements of problems caused by government wrongdoing.
2b) Responses.
For where it would help to do so, another way I see outside of the above is to break out a smaller (subsidiary or supplemental) statement, and amend it independently. It may then serve to partially resolve the total needs of some larger proposals (discussed further on).
In the next section (and to the end), I hope you will see what effort is applied to try to remain in keeping with the tenets of parliamentary rules; to not be partial or preferential, and to be logical, universal, and democratic in each step that is taken. Along with this, I try to make an original set of bylaws that will not restrict the good people that will come, and I keep everything amendable.
Our Definition
Here is a chart of our main business activities. As we'll see, what is depicted here is constituted in the written definition in the starting community bylaws.
Shown above are a basic set of amendment types. These types are most strongly defined by their names; very few other stipulations exist. Our one-two process is 1) statements in writing, and 2) measures in this world. As our main process, it is 1) "claims" of wrongdoing, and 2) "responses" to claims. These words are selected to be completely unrestrictive in the face of any good amendments as desired.
When searching, sorting, or organizing business activities, this general format is for the purpose of assisting an assembly in organizing its operations. At the same time, this definition provides a written promise to ourselves and the public as to what it is we do.
In terms of the words used, in place of "claim", either "injustice" or "wrongdoing" would work well, but "claim" is used because the word for this will be commonly used. We can think of these as our claims as auditors or investigators. The word "response" is used to refer to any allocation or action that may be taken.
The rules for auxiliary types (at right), is that these are problems caused by wrongs, so to get here, they have to specify what claims they are based upon. For total flexibility, any time a latter type has to refer back to a former type, it can refer to one or more. To not restrict, an auxiliary response can list multiple auxiliary statements, and an auxiliary statement can list multiple claims.
For the auxiliary types, both "grievance" and "action" are used as universal, catch-all terms, to respectively (categorize) and entitle any kind of problem and any kind of response. The terms "alert" (for a threat), "loss", "protection", and "redress" are used to be more specific, for greater organization of amendments and activities.
Subsidiary types occur in a space for breaking out a larger question into smaller ones. For example, an "interpretation" of law could be passed by itself, and then bundled in with any number of different claims (this will get its own discussion). In the case of subsidiary measures, I would leave this as "lawful political recourse" at the start. By "political" I mean to say that it has to do with us, and what we are doing.
Here is a picture of a simple example, with nested claims and other types:
As long as we're organizing our amended activities, the above example shows how a claim can be nested inside of another, such that a variety of claims which well-categorize under "fraudulent pandemic" may be accumulated. We can also see how child types are logically nested inside of parent types, with an alert and a loss (among other things) inside of a claim, and a redress inside of a loss.
Support Thresholds
Our common cause gives us a different origin than that of day-to-day government politics. We want something we all feel is wrong to end. They can debate different ways of structuring many laws, or the tax code, in a more open atmosphere, when not so driven, like us, by a uniting cause. In the US, laws are made by the support of two houses and presidential approval, but at each step, by majority vote. I do not think we will have a need to dip down into majority vote thresholds here (very often). I think majority votes can be used when there are two acceptable options to choose from, and the assembly wishes for the matter to be completed.
They say the most common supermajorities include 3/5 (60%), 2/3 (66.67%), and 3/4 (75%). From Federalist No. 22, by Alexander Hamilton, and from Federalist No. 58, by James Madison, there are the express concerns regarding supermajorities, but the ones they are referring to directly are of the unanimous kind. I think the minority that Hamilton and Madison talk about constitute a small minority of voters who could cause the required support to not be met, and more mixed voting can happen for small-minded, selfish, and cowardly reasons, and I will be making note, as we go along, when I feel there may be a reason to expect the voting to be a notch more mixed.
I've set supermajority thresholds on the above (business) types of amendments, because we've been coralled into it. We're being collectively abused, offended, and disenfranchised. I have seen a great amount of democratic fuel, i.e. evidence, for achieving high levels of support. I think this will bear resemblance to what happens in a judicial proceeding, where 100% support is most commonly required.
Bylaws Versus Business: Like the American system, we have rules at two major levels, before any mention of an assembly's parliamentary rules. We have bylaws, which I would liken to American constitutional law, and then we have all of these (claims-based) business activities, which I would liken to American legal code. Our bylaws may define ongoing jurisdictions, offices, and assemblies, and they may include rules which supercede all others, such as general rules for membership, elections, and amendments. The bylaws supersede all else.
Amending the bylaws is generally more involved than amending business. At the community level, there is only 2/3 assembly support. At district and national levels, with business amendments, there is only one round of voting, in the legislative assembly, whereas with bylaw amendments, there is a second round; among members in districts, or among district legislatures nationally.
Our federal government requires 2/3 support in congress, as followed by 2/3 support in each of 3/4 of the states, and this is a concern for me. We live in a time with thousands of pages of federal lawmaking, without constitutional amendments. From an article at Pew Research regarding attempts at US constitutional amendments; “Since 1999 ... 134 separate balanced-budget amendments have been formally introduced in either the House or Senate, making it the single most popular subject of amendment proposals over that timespan”... (None passed.) ...“Of the roughly 12,000 amendments proposed since the Constitutional Convention, only 33 have gone to the states for ratification, and just 27 have made it all the way into the Constitution.”... It looks to me like they have trouble clearing the house and the senate (all at once), but this also leaves us lacking experience in seeing how the states follow.
Most US state constitutions today are amended with 2/3 support in the legislature, as followed by majority support in the state population. I have adopted this for district bylaw amendments. In the case of national bylaw amendments, the second round of voting is conducted by district legislatures. I would like to place the districts as one notch away from national, in terms of how mixed their voting may be guessed to be.
Back to Thresholds
When drafting for this, I chose a minimum of 12 wards per district, as a minimum number of seats to distribute the power of assembly across. There is also a recommendation for the number of wards to go up if the membership size passes a given amount, or earlier as the district may desire. I found use of 7/12 as a support threshold, because with a 12-seat assembly, I found that 3/5 and 2/3 are the same, at 8 of 12. 7/12 would be 7 of 12 (which would not be the same as a majority when a tiebreaker has been appointed).
This number is very close to 3/5, at 58 1/3%. I consider a red zone as support in the low 50s (percent), as a place where factions can try to fight over winning, and I think that over 55% is getting beyond that sort of ability. I find it interesting that Colorado requires 55% supermajority by the voting public on state constitutional amendments.
I am afraid of our using the federal method, because I want us to be able to pass national bylaw amendments. I think we are aided by having only one national assembly to get past. Between state and federal thresholds, I see a middle road, and mathematically, it is exactly halfway between 1/2 and 2/3, and it is 7/12. The requirements for national bylaw amendments are on this middle road, at 2/3 of the national assembly, as followed by 7/12 in each of 3/4 of districts. I think only a respectable amendment will be able to pass.
Perhaps historically 7/12 was not as intuitive and ready to grasp as, for example, 3/5, but I am guessing that in the modern world we have risen to well intuiting which of the others 7/12 falls between. When I think of hundreds of small legislatures, it occurs to me it may be best to plan on the use of 7/12.
In regards to what happens in Congress, I imagine they are simply too corrupt to have a worthy constitutional amendment (in spite of wanting a balanced budget). Perhaps we can help with that. If we can clean up Congress, then maybe they can pass representative constitutional amendments, with some common cause.
Business Amendment Thresholds
As said, judicial proceedings tend to require 100% support to pass. Out of respect to the claims we will be making, we should require high support for them. I think we could try 3/4, which seems like a strong amount of support. Another concern for me would be the ability of a 1/4 minority to block a claim proposal. They could say they don't like how it's worded. For this reason, I would choose to go with 2/3 support, which is at least twice as much as any remaining amount. We would be able to say that the support is sufficient for common cause, where a 1/3 minority would be needed to block it.
In the case of all other business amendment types, they must follow on to claims which have passed with 2/3 support, and so I think they come from good origins, and in support of those who vote in support, it would be possible to drop their required thresholds by a notch, while showing a degree of support for common cause.
This question of post-claim types raises my imagination upon two other possibilities; either majority or 2/3 support for them all. I imagine using a majority, like the government, would be most lively, and may yield the largest number of passages. When using 2/3, it will be the elected assembly that needs to come together on what they, as a body, would like to do, at the behest of their supporters. I think they would be able to come together on a proactive course. Between the two, I feel like I'm being put back on the middle road, in a balancing position between these two landscapes, at 7/12. We may also see how our business goes, and use what history we gather to make a case for amending our support thresholds.
Back to the Definition
We are, to a degree, putting our faith in our legislatures, but this does not include anyone's actions as a volunteer. Until members are signing contracts, our elected people have no powers over anyone in law.
This is a common cause organization, with locally elected people. The definition to follow is in everyone's bylaws. It frames our business, and after this, I would look to support thresholds, and other internal checks, such as localization, transparency, etc., to guarantee a trustworthy operation. At some point, people have to do the right thing, regardless of how anyone tries to put it, and when done properly, to do so on record and in front of everyone. An alternative news audience is not guessed to be a naive one. I think this definition provides more than enough of a guide, and beyond this, with sufficient support I choose to not further restrict what course the assembly may take.
Any bylaws will be blockquoted as follows:
Public Business
Definition: For our public business, we define ourselves collectively as a voluntary, democratic organization, wherein; upon our government, we will monitor for and respond to collectively perceived wrongdoings, and we may note and respond to their ill effects.
The above is the first statement in the “definition”, which is being put into the bylaws, and the bylaws supercede all other writings. When there is a legislature, it has its own parliamentary rules (assembly rules) and business amendments (such as claims and responses), as kept separately from the bylaws. The business definition is placed in the bylaws to say to everyone that this is who we are and what we do.
General Public Business Rules
In our public business activities, we provide for our assembly to make amendments of the following pre-defined types: for primary types: claims (as main statements); responses (as main measures); grievances, alerts, and losses (as auxiliary statements); and actions, protections, and redresses (as auxiliary measures); and for subsidiary types: interpretations (as subsidiary statements); and any lawful political recourse (as assembly-accepted subsidiary measures).
These are most of the types in the chart; anything else (such as verifications) is considered amendable by members once they have arrived. "Any lawful political recourse" is included as measures which may be amended by area leadership without requiring approval by the assembly as a whole.
Areas: Organized Business Activities
The US House has committees for various sectors of government concern. We will possess the same organizational needs. For example, we will be in a position to pass claims in the areas of medicine, agriculture, banking, foreign policy, etc.. I can see First Amendment rights given to corporations being a matter of interest for many of us, which would, interestingly, need to fall into an area. With 2/3 support in an assembly, areas can be defined, and activities can all be organized and routed through them.
The most obvious instrument for an area would be an area committee, or in a smaller assembly, an area representative. An area committee could then lead on amending all activity types that fall into their area. People can also think about how many committees each person can sit on, and, interestingly, who can be put into what types of committees, councils, or commissions.
Business Areas: With 2/3 support, this assembly may amend organizational public business areas, with parliamentary elements, such as offices, committees, and funds, for each area's leadership to independently administer its public business amendments and associated activities.
Within 30 days of the creation of any national area, each district is requested to amend its own corresponding point of area administration, to function as an ongoing administrative link between district members and national area leadership.
Any claim must be assigned to a business area within 60 days of its passage.
Area leadership may conduct its own fundraising. 2/3 of the assembly will still have power over any areas. Now we can imagine playing them out; a campaign of action in the medical area could be underway, while another is playing out in banking.
To pick up new claims, I think 30 days would be quick enough, and 90 days would be too slow for us all. I think that by the assembly and by area administrations, if they feel they have a claim that does not need to be picked up as quickly, then I've given them 60 days for organizing or amending their areas to do so.
Business Area Rankings: At district and national levels, the following will be included in what is amended: members may cast their favorite area rankings and update them every Saturday, and the tallies of these, by area and rank, will be made public.
For us, various areas of government wrongs make places for claims, and I feel in no position to say how to prioritize this. It seems we have some open, free space among areas, and that we will present a spectrum of personal favorites. I can even imagine a 9/11 Truth movement. But let us not create 6 separate organizations, each with ten thousand of its own elected representatives (at 25 wards per district), plus executive and judicial offices, and each at 1/6 the size. With all of the democratic work to rally upon common cause, each organization would be effectively marginalized.
We have the opportunity to collect much good data by inviting all members to submit their personally highest-ranked areas. With all of these tallies, there will be strong feedback from represented to representative, regarding what areas the membership most wish to pursue.
We can gather and share all of the infrastructure, and something more fundamental; we are all alternative news readers, and we will all be responding to government wrongdoings. This is how we are clearly bounded, and capable of corresponding to sources of wrongs which cross areas, while operating under one roof. Our one roof will be as big as government wrongdoing.
I imagine people showing support across areas, and joining in for strong showings for commonly good things. I think there will be a natural drive to gather and direct more resources toward greater progress on our most promising, prioritized, or favored fronts. I imagine that we may collectively stand for what we come to see as the most representative things.
Business Amendment Statuses: When the subject matter of a business amendment is currently active and ongoing, or when an amendment is a dependency of an active amendment, then the amendment is to be made "active" in status, or otherwise it is only "amended". Area administrations will keep the statuses of their amendments updated, within ten days of when status changes occur.
When the subject matter of an amendment is active, it is currently happening, and if one amendment (such as a claim) becomes a dependency of another active amendment (such as a response), then the claim is made active. This is to assist with organizing all information on the one hand, versus what is marked active on the other, in managing amendments and activities.
I think it would be good to note that we may encounter later effects of previous wrongdoings, so it's good to have old (amended) claims, in case new responses are needed.
The time of ten (business) days is for an area's administration to update the statuses of its own area amendments, and so this is not considered to be too short of a time to do it.
A statement is to include; its statement and its duly supportive evidence and analysis.
By “duly supportive”, I mean to say that to the extent it is apparent that such materials are called for, they should be provided. Regarding the listed parts, I'm stating a way to organize the materials as its statement, its evidence, and its analysis (to link or combine its parts).
A statement is worded most directly as a violation of law, and sufficiently as a violation of common morality.
“Most directly as” is a way of setting a perfection standard for the wording of a statement. Whether seemingly civil or criminal, a claim is not a charge in a court of law. In the development of support for a claim, from the resources drawn upon comes their most direct way to put it. A claim may be more abstract; it may reflect striving for changes in government and law. Violations of law are considered to be most direct, when such laws are available to cite. In the context of a claim, they appear to be most concrete. We may want to be more legal, or merely moral.
For all measures, leadership positions must be specified, for the administration of the measures.
Leadership positions have to be defined to assign measures to, but they can be filled after.
Measures are made of justifiable responses, primarily for the purpose of mitigating, redressing, and ending the stuff of the statements they respond to.
Another perfection standard is stated; "to mitigating, redressing, or ending [bad things]", and to leave the more general responses and actions altogether open to any course which states that it is a justifiable response to an amended statement with 7/12 support.
A subsidiary type may only be attached to a primary type when it has matched the support requirement for the primary type.
Subsidiary types need to be attached to primary types to get into the claims-based process.
Primary Types
Primary Business Amendment Types
Claims: As a "claim", with 2/3 support we may amend a statement of government wrongdoing.
I have seen enough evidence – indeed, I left such a smattering of evidence in Part I; I feel confident that we will be able to include enough good evidence to secure the support of 2/3 on many claims. As the alternative news world may prefer, our evidence is in our published legislative material.
Claims are the gateway for all paths to follow. The remaining types must track back to what has originated here. People should have some focus on the claim itself, when considering a response, and to keep us in our track.
Drafting Large Business Amendments
Starting with a piece of evidence, a person could draft a claim proposal. The statement(s) would include what are considered violations. With this approach, it would seem like a good idea to look around for and include associated evidence of the same violation(s), and in the process, possibly lengthen the list of violations. This approach is likely to contribute to a large accumulation of claims, which may be given to being organized further in their area.
It is possible for a body of evidence and analysis to back multiple violations. It is also posible to compile a set of claims the size of a book. Such a project could even be commissioned, for example, by an assembly. A large amount of research could back a common list of claims, in the organization of the material. Going one step further, it could be a practice to commission the drafting of a given amendment, to appoint dedicated representatives or relevant experts to the job. As such, what the commissioned person(s) produce will have to pass an assembly vote.
Back to Primary Types
Responses: As a "response", with 7/12 support we may amend a commitment to responding to specified claims.
I use the word “commitment” to say that while this is in writing, it refers to actual resource allocations, assignments, and real-world operations. Members may volunteer to contribute to these activities.
Grievances: As a "grievance", with 7/12 support we may amend a statement of grievance caused by specified claims.
Actions: As an "action", with 7/12 support we may amend a commitment to respond to specified auxiliary statements.
Grievances and actions are the most general auxiliary types. Grievances are example of statements that can exist simply to (publicly) say problems exist. Actions are open to respond to any auxiliary statements.
Alerts: As an "alert", with 7/12 support we may amend a statement of an ongoing threat caused by specified claims.
Protections: As a "protection", with 7/12 support we may amend a commitment to mitigating or ending specified alerts.
I would like for us to be able to work together to secure ourselves against some of the conditions which are arising due to the activities of our government (such as neighborhood watches among large numbers of new migrants).
Once a statement of a threatening condition exists, it may stand as a statement of public alert, or it may be further used to back propositions for protections”, i.e. “commitments to security”.
Losses: As a "loss", with 7/12 support we may amend a statement of loss caused by specified claims.
Redresses: As a "redress", with 7/12 support we may amend a commitment to redressing specified losses.
Dictionary.com defines “redress” as, “to set right; remedy or repair (wrongs, injuries, etc.). to correct or reform (abuses, evils, etc.).”. Vocabulary.com says regarding redress; “In the noun form, it is the compensation for setting something right. As a verb it means to correct, right a wrong, or make restitution for something.”
Note that protections and redresses are more tightly defined than actions. They can't just be responses; they have to mitigate, end, or redress. This keeps them in their categories. Grievances and actions are catch-all types
Subsidiary Types
Subsidiary Business Amendment Types
I want to lead up to the next type with a bylaw from another section, regarding how we place ourselves in relation to US law.
We operate in accordance with our collective interpretation of US law.
There are places for two things being said here. For one, there is a hook in it; it's not US law, it is our interpretation of it. This is the same function that the judicial branch performs. In the US, our legislature may make laws, and our executive may enforce them, but only when they are interpreted by the judicial may they be struck down as unconstitutional. This combination of code and constitution creates a place for the two being at odds with one another, and this could happen here.
The other thing being said, to everyone, is that we require of our collective operation to be in keeping with the law. I think that is a good thing to say to the public, particularly when it is a "collective interpretation", and not just anyone. And now back to Subsidiary Types...
Interpretations: As an "interpretation", with 2/3 support, we may amend a statement of our collective interpretation of US law.
Unconstitutional laws are the primary cause of wanting to be able to separate out the above question. An interpretation requires 2/3 support because I think it is as lofty a thing to say as to claim a government wrongdoing. If we get to the point of using this type, then I think it will be because we are saying that we disagree with the government as to what exactly the law is.
As a subsidiary type, once an interpretation passes, then it can be bundled with any number of the primary amendment types.
Evidence
[Sample:
Research: A standing committee will be assigned oversight on research, which will include: maintaining a point of noted contact for research applicants, keeping a queue of researchers, and with 2/3 support, to add and remove researchers from the queue. If a researcher is not available when selected, they will be moved to the back of the queue.
Verifications: As a "verification", with the approval of a duly selected researcher, a piece of evidence may be taken as verified.]
The above is a sample, and not included in the starting bylaws, because I can see some variety in how to make good rules for verifying evidence. In the above case, I am imagining a standing committee, assigned to Research Oversight (among other things), and this would include receiving and accepting research applicants, and overseeing a queue of researchers. Researchers are selected (and removed) from the front of the queue, and added to the back.
Evidence would go to the committee, and they would call the next in queue, and if there is a deadline for when the research must be done, then the next in queue could be allowed to skip their turn, and they could go to the back, or as some might want, they could go to the middle. I could also see a national assembly (at least) wanting to have redundant researchers on verifications, and the rules to go with that.
Since evidence is so much at the heart of what we do, I see it being given its own attention. I wouldn't want a busy assembly to skip their own verifications of evidence, but I also wouldn't want to say that I was relying on everyone verifying all of the evidence behind all of the claims they are voting on. If an assembly gets down a road based upon questionable evidence, then it is a road I would rather not see them take.
Addendum
In the definition in part 2, I had not taken the next step to note that a claim could operate in the same way as an interpretation, by packaging things differently. If we say that we disagree with a government interpretation, then we are saying that theirs is wrong, which would make it a claim. I think it would make a case for interpretation if one well-lends itself to being attached to multiple claims.
Accomplices: Parties To
Regarding another subsidiary type for consideration, in this writing, I had added my definition of "alternative news", but I had not gone over it, exactly, in the context of this organization. It includes accomplices. This system is based entirely on government wrongs, but not accomplices.
A subsidiary statement, which I might call an "accomplice", or a "party", since we don't have parties, could state that a party outside of the government has participated in a wrong that the government has also participated in. There would have to be a claim first, in order to create this, and then there could be a "Party To", which says the party is also involved.
What can go wrong with an accomplice begins when it is first capturing or conspiring with the government. Capture without conspiracy sounds like aliens from another world tinkering with the brains of our leaders, or a Manchurian Candidate, or someone holding our leaders hostage, and so honestly, conspiracy is the only one I actually know of, but including capture covers all of the bases.
In a conspiracy, the government has to participate in it, and this can open a claim, and then parties can be attached. This keeps the whole business process claims-based, which only begins with 2/3 support on a government injustice. I think parties to should require the same claim-level support.
If we pass that in a vote, then by the added type we could run our whole claims-based process against that party, with the parties to attached to the claims. This would also make a place to udpate the core definition to "upon our government, and its accomplices,"…
Below are Party To types added to the nested claims picture:
Interestingly, below is a picture of how private interests who conspire with the government play out. Notice how their powers and benefits correspond to our threats and losses. I also think we could make claims if the government is controlling a private interest (not depicted).
I think, at this point, that when we see, for example, a benefit to a private interest, then we may write a loss for it, and the same for powers and alerts.
This concludes part 2.