Now and For the Future

This is a review of what I see as our current problems, and our possibilities for a response now, and in the future.

First, there is a STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, which I believe begins in civilization when there is a Central Authority of some sophistication. The CA comes to include full-time jobs for a number of people, but not of the general public, who will all have families, careers and personal interests of their own. The problem that I see here is in the manifestation of an us-and-them landscape between the CA and the people, and an ensuing public awareness gap. I would also say that the public is generally more distant in relation to a more sophisticated CA.

We then have a fourth estate, i.e. the estate of the free press. This is not an architected thing, such as our governmental system. The free press is in the private sector, where it may be manipulated by its owners, such as William Randolph Hearst, or any mainstream news source today. This is where the American people think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, which turned out to not be true.

Let us consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, when he said that he would rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers. These are for our minds, and our minds are instruments of great power. When the minds of the people are wrong, then public affairs can become quite tragic, and I believe that under such circumstances, any system of government can fail. I also believe that if the people can get their minds right on shared, public affairs, then any system of government may succeed, so long as getting our facts straight is not being impinged. If it's a king, and he gets out of line, then this may be seen, and he may be deposed. Public information is simply too important. Here's another quote by Jefferson on this:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”

Jefferson feels that the people can be safe when they have a truly free press. I'm going to agree, and I'm going to propose an architected response.

As I see MATTERS TODAY, due to problems in the press and media, much corruption in the government has accumulated, and special interests have gained favor with them over the people. Today I see this corruption growing to fill our awareness gap, and I think it even runs out of the gap and into the light of day. You can peruse this book from a Princeton study from 2012, and its many glowing reviews on Amazon:

Affluence and Influence… “as this book demonstrates, America's policymakers respond almost exclusively to the preferences of the economically advantaged.”...

In this article, we can see a history of first amendment rights given to corporations, now amounting to billions a year in corporate lobbying:

Corporate Personhood Rights... Columbia Business Law Review Nov, 2023

... And according to Gallup polling, since 2006 we have been experiencing our lowest recorded congressional approval ratings, remaining at or below 20% throughout the period.

I think our public system has descended from a democratic republic into an oligarchy. I can see attributing all of these developments to the filling of a public awareness gap.

As a STATEMENT OF THE SOLUTION, when the government is just, we can say that we have our solution, but when with verifiable evidence we can claim that they are wronging us in the terms of our common morality, then I propose that among ourselves we gain a supermajority and publicly uphold claims of their injustice. Democracy is an important part of this.

This is not for EVIDENCE of leaning, on a political matter, this way or that. In our city, state, and federal governments, there is majority voting for such things. This is for evidence of criminal activity and the like, which would typically belong before a judge or a jury, where 100% support would most commonly be required. In traditional parliamentary procedure, any articles may be amended and any members may be removed with 2/3 SUPPORT, and I believe that this threshold will be well-suited for collective claims of government injustice.

Those who TRUST their government say that theirs is the most trusted METHOD. I think failure has occurred in the fourth estate - the most suspect component of modern architecture. We need to use a most publicly trusted method to support the statements that we intend to uphold. Proper method is in the consensus of the community beyond any private interests, which means that before the public, method checks man.

The scientific method yields knowledge. When we may or may not surely know what we are doing, the political method yields laws and actions, wherein decisions are made and acted upon. The smartness I would be looking for here would come from having direct access to the evidence supporting claims of government injustices. I would add this information to the fourth estate.

When statements of injustice are democratically upheld, the potential for place and purpose in such an organization may come to include political ACTION IN RESPONSE. For a combination of claims of injustice and allocations for action, I will tentatively render A WRITTEN DEFINITION of what this democratic organization could define itself to do, as follows:

...“We define ourselves collectively as a voluntary, democratic organization, wherein; upon our government and its accomplices, we may monitor for and respond to collectively perceived injustices, and we may note and respond to their ill effects.”...

From further examples of tentative, bylegal writing:

...”As a "claim", with 2/3 support we may amend a statement of government injustice.”...

...”As a "response", with 7/12 support we may amend a commitment to responding to specified claims.”....

When facing corporate elites today, the scale of the task at hand is such that the power needed to achieve it comes at politics' greatest height. No one person or group can own this – I believe that only a robust, democratic organization can reach this height. Trusting oneself is politically immature. When there is no private owner, the structure is most immune to character assassination, and unlike a private person or group, with the greatest power it is the way that is most robust.

I believe that the power needed to complete this task will be such that the structure needed to wield it will need to be especially robust. To do this, I believe that a democratic formation will also need to possess CORE ARCHITECTURAL VALUES. For one, those who are elected should answer only to those who are local to them, giving the grassroots robust connections throughout. Secondly, outside of scheduled election events, it should be mandated that there be no election campaigning, to remove private money. This is practiced in small, democratic organizations today, such as in libraries, church groups, and charities. With the securing of these core virtues, I believe that this system will be able to survive the amount of power that I think it needs to have. A democracy is not under private control; it is alive and off its leash. I also see it gaining greater stability by way of a greater head-count, where there are more people watching each other.

As imagined, in using a generic, democratic method, the nation would be divided into local, equal-population districts, and to be fully robust, each would have its own legislature. Each would also put forth one delegate to a national body. Districts within a given state may get together to amend state-related offices. All of these details are explored in the reference material at the end.

From the Declaration of Independence:

...“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”...

A nonpartisan, democratic method thrives on common cause. Perhaps the use of this will help us to rediscover our humanity, wherein we are not bogged down in battles between ourselves, rather; where we care about government offenses against the governed.

With core virtues, this will be what I call a “shotgun legislature”. When the evidence is assembled, those tasked with proposing and voting upon claims of injustice will do so on public record. I think these people may lose their offices when they disagree upon evidence that most find convincing.

In science today, DEMOCRACY is studied in herds, flocks, and some insect populations, and so this is not an idea. Democracy has roots in an animal's physical existence, and I believe it is a thing to be experienced. I view democracy as primarily local to the individual. In the use of this approach, I believe that MODERN MAN IS CHALLENGED. The requirements herein include getting together locally, and we have waned greatly in the strength of our local communities, and I believe that this has been politically crippling. This system is proposed to be local and robust. We can’t have “town halls” if we don’t know the people where we live. They are how America was created… Intimately.

In the past twenty years, I have seen March Against Monsanto, various 9/11 Truth groups, the Tea Party, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, Represent.us, the Tenth Amendment Center, and the Article V Convention of States, and it appears to me that no one has achieved their political objectives. I think this is because private ownership occurs on a lesser scale than what the people need.

Today's communities appear to be largely online, and these appear to number into the thousands. Particular types of information are shared in these spheres, but really not outside of them. They are also like online polls, in that they are factions, in both politics and cyberspace, which may not be democratic. I would say that real democracy will be insured by being either replete in ranks across the lawful jurisdictions, or by being the sources for the likes of Gallup or Rasmussen polls. Fair and equal access will also be an important part of being democratic.

At the same time that I have seen a number of national political organizations sprout up, I have not seen, in a modern city, the sprouting up of a local, democratic organization. The case seems convincing to me; we do not appear to be developing democratically even at the local (urban) level, but I have seen a town hall in a rural area. It seems we are generally not experiencing democracy as a species, however; the tactics herein could be applied at city, state, and national levels.

Imagine that individuals are in charge, and we each find our places. Intimacy is a multiplier of clout, and it escalates to the individual. I see natural democracy begin when two people intimately share a concern, and there is another multiplier of this, which means it occurs millions of times at a time. Sharing common concerns can naturally bubble up within each community and across society. I believe that in modern times this organic process has been largely cut off at its origin, but I think it can be reinstituted.

Modern man is much online, and so A SITE ONLINE would provide a way for people to find each other and this organization. With enough recruits on site, local communities could be created and members would be able to organize locally, in person, from there. I think 20,000 people nationally would be enough to create communities locally, and then everyone would be able to find their local community via an online registry.

Creating a national, democratic organization creates a calling for those who would fill its needs for planning and architecture. I imagine A SMALL BUT REPUTABLE GROUP would fill a startup need, by its number and type of parties, for sufficiently facilitating an initial public trust. I can also imagine groups starting locally, but I imagine this will be difficult without a way for people to find each other in their own communities. This is why I think it may be easier to start a national organization online.

This organization would be defined to operate across all areas of public injustice. It seems possible to initially populate it with VOLUNTEER-MEMBERS OF EXISTING ORGANIZATION(s). This will introduce a balancing act for INDIVIDUALS DEDICATED TO SPECIFIC AREAS.

It is proposed that each area of public concern be given its own area administration. The legislature would amend area administrations, to some extent comprised of themselves. Petitions for the amendments of area administrations would be honored, contributing to additional leadership for areas as desired. Members could state their favorite areas, which could force area leaderships based upon popular support. The legislature would vote upon proposals by any recognized area administrations, requiring, for example, 2/3 support to uphold claims of government injustices.

In relation to any specific area, there are the added burdens of a common infrastructure across all areas, in exchange for specific areas gaining support from the total collective. Hundreds of districts – each with their own elected officials, and thousands of wards – each with their own elected representative, may be reused as democratic infrastructure across common causes, fulfilling and utilizing a robust method, in collectively vying for the public trust.

---

I want to include a couple of headlines from today's news. I do traverse a broad landscape with sources, but these are from Jimmy Dore, and they just struck me as to how it seems that every time the clock ticks, more of our liberties are being lost. These also revolve around first amendment rights - the stuff of the fourth estate. In the first, “debanking” people based upon their political speech is being passed, and in the second, a corporation is suing activists for protesting. I think at some point and in some concerted manner that we the people will have to respond.

Senate Votes To ALLOW Debanking Over “Misinformation” & “Hate”!

CRITICAL Free Speech Case Unfolding In N. Dakota! w/ Steven Donziger

Reference

This site is (thus far) dedicated to this topic, and includes a three-part article called Building Communities. Any architecture or bylaws is regarded as tentative, and not as in final form.

PART 1 goes over problems believed to have developed in modern times.

PART 2 includes discussion on common cause and nonpartisan architecture, and includes a detailed definition of an organizational business process.

PART 3 is the “Complete Intro”, and goes over a startup process of creating local communities, then districts, and lastly a national body. At the top, this article includes a larger reference to related reading.