CDZ A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution

[Christophera]

ABT,
Aside from the corruption issues the big fault with the system is that you are promoting corporations to the level of citizens. Corporate entities are not and should never be citizens. They are composed of citizens that already have the right to vote. Corporations should never be construed to have the rights of citizens.

Agreed, and the complexity found in the proposal competes with what stands as principles or standards that support human lives with the current system as it stands ideally.

The ideals underlying our framing documents are derived from natural or instinctual structures well observed and used for millennia.
It has been only the church undermining the natural, human performance in custody of the well being of generations that have diverted us under tyranny to de evolve into confusion. Complex alternative mechanisms to be tested and fail are a dark preoccupation in competition with our positive, surviving, evolving, simple, self evident nature.

 

[pauls]

But, the decay of representative government proves, the constitution as it stands needs repair.
Lobbyists and corporations are given more considerations than the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people.

 

[ABT]

I see your point and thanks you again for your professional critique. To start off corporations arn't at all citizens; they just have a restricted separate voting ability. The reason for having corporation to vote is because while corporations are composed of many people, the entity has needs and wants separate aspects than the actual people working for it. So to speak they "breathe profits; they eat interest on money. If they don't get it, they die the way you die without air, without side-meat." (Grapes of Wrath ch5 page 39). They have goals of expansion or consolidation for the future and if they have they have a chance to have restricted voting ability thru votes of representative in each business sector, there would be a more legal alternative than corruption thru bribery. So with a legal political opportunity for corporations to express there voice, less needs for and higher punishment for bribery and corruption corporations may be able to healthily expand their goals while the citizens are protected.

ABT,
Aside from the corruption issues the big fault with the system is that you are promoting corporations to the level of citizens. Corporate entities are not and should never be citizens. They are composed of citizens that already have the right to vote. Corporations should never be construed to have the rights of citizens.

 

[pauls]

Governments are formed to protect the governed. Corporations are formed to profit from people I fail to see any manner in which these two could join without the growth of corruption, bribery, and power. There is no means for the people to protect themselves in an oligarchy.

 

[ABT]

I truly do understand your concern. Have you read about The Vice-Commoner Head yet on the precautions page? he is able to kick any current. He is elected directly by the masses every 4 years. He is in charge of the secret intelligence of that country capable of putting any corporate representative or member on trial and firing them. He can impeach any current overseer out after 3 years of service with the approval of 67% of the masses or more. If that overseer is kicked only the masses (not corporate owners) can vote for the next overseer. The masses should have in total 49% masses + 11% overseer = 60% voting power. With your concern, i will work constantly as i always am to improve and re-innovate Eleutherocracy and make sure the masses can always have an advantage while the corporations will have a voice with restrictions.

 

[pauls]

What, in your mind, prevents the vice commoner head from corruption?

You are treating this as though people are perfect. Your entire system relies on the participants plating their roles without errors. If that were possible then communism would be a perfect solution to government. Unfortunately people are not perfect and they will always drift toward money and power. No position can be made incorruptible. More money just places a person in that position in a form of elitism right from the start.

You need to start over with the assumption that if allowed corruption will seep into any system.

 

[ABT]

What, in your mind, prevents the vice commoner head from corruption?

You are treating this as though people are perfect. Your entire system relies on the participants plating their roles without errors. If that were possible then communism would be a perfect solution to government. Unfortunately people are not perfect and they will always drift toward money and power. No position can be made incorruptible. More money just places a person in that position in a form of elitism right from the start.

You need to start over with the assumption that if allowed corruption will seep into any system.

Repestfully Paul,
I'm not arguing my system cant be corrupted, any government system, I'm arguing that my system is less corruptible than that of the United State. I'm arguing that the Vice Commoner Head (VCH) is only able to be possibly be corrupted for at most 4 years in which is the end of his term and another is reelected. The overseer, while able to be kicked out every 3 years by the VCH, can also checked by the other 2 cabinets every 6. So lets for example make if the VHC and Overseer both elected on the same year for simplicity. lets say the Overseer corrupts the VHC. The VHC is then voted out after 4 years and replaced by the next VHC which can still vote to impeach him. Even if the Overseer corrupts that VHC. He can be checked 2 years following by both members of the cabinet. Than somehow manages bribe the entire majority of The commoner cabinet and make the corporation agree to support him, the commoner cabinet will be replaced every 6 years by fresh members
(voted in by the masses) and the VHC will again leave after his 4 year term with a new person. This limits the extent and raises the price of Corruption. Also, If caught by the Secret agency, or the commoner's policing department he would also be impeached.

 

[Christophera]

But, the decay of representative government proves, the constitution as it stands needs repair.
Lobbyists and corporations are given more considerations than the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people.

Very true, it needs repair.

Democracy depends on opinion, opinion depends on information, information depends on media, media is corporations.

One of the most prime purposes of free speech is to create an informed opinion. That vital purpose cannot be trusted to corporations and it is. Without altering their exclusive control over info used to form opinion for democratic action can be provided outside of any of their interests. This draft revision of the first amendment will do that,

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

 

[Christophera]

The draft of the revised First Amendment includes an ancient philosophical doctrine, and I think its necessary for this country or any country to remain free and united.

The premise of this thread is that a lawful and peaceful revolution can be made, but human unity is required. The powers that be have done everything possible to destroy human unity in America. This is the true challenge.

Strictly speaking, if the framers intended Americans to be able to alter or abolish, they intended for Americans to be unified. Logically they only way that will happen and continue is for free speech to serve the purpose of doing so.

Essentially, implied in this view of the Declaration of Independence framing the intent for the constitution, is that Americas government has the legal duty to assure Americans are adequately united to abolish said government in case it ever becomes destructive to unalienable rights.

The ancient doctrine is one of human culture. Family, community in unity. It is called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" and was presented to the framers Franklin, Jefferson and Washington. Of course it was removed from written history by elements associated with loyalists, but the Indigenous people of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy keep oral histories and they communicated it to me long ago.

Through a practice of free speech between people, and understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The draft revision includes that because the doctrine is the quickest path for government to promote unity amongst the people. It also provides a standard for which speech the government may choose to support in addition to allow in order to promote unity.

Government has a history of promoting positive communications for the peoples benefit. PBS, NPR, public access television, etc. The reason it does is because the elite have a conscious. They are not all bad. Amongst them are those descended from loyalists, then there are others descended from those that created the Magna Carta. Which was a peace treaty. Those that drove the king and barons to negotiate ended up going to America. They know what was taken from the people when the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" was removed from the American people. The good ones know how important it is and when possible, they make moves to try and return some of that value to us.

Such effort however are inadequate to empower the unity needed to alter or abolish. Therefore, we must lawfully and peacefully revolt by invoking the intentions of the Declaration of Independence, expressed in the constitution to control our states which now hold the power to alter or abolish.

 

[Christophera]

What, in your mind, prevents the vice commoner head from corruption?

You are treating this as though people are perfect. Your entire system relies on the participants plating their roles without errors. If that were possible then communism would be a perfect solution to government. Unfortunately people are not perfect and they will always drift toward money and power. No position can be made incorruptible. More money just places a person in that position in a form of elitism right from the start.

You need to start over with the assumption that if allowed corruption will seep into any system.

The overseer, while able to be kicked out every 3 years by the VCH, can also checked by the other 2 cabinets every 6. So lets for example make if the VHC and Overseer both elected on the same year for simplicity. lets say the Overseer corrupts the VHC.

What is needed is a graphic flow chart of the hierarchy of authority that shows how the political system is linked up.

The points where democratic influence has effect need to be shown.

My whole focus is that information needed to vote with an informed opinion is NOT AVAILABLE unless you already have an informed opinion, and know it. Such is not an easy state. I know many people that think they know, Then I start asking them, and we both realize they don't know.

What I'm trying to say is that it is quite possible that many different political systems could produce acceptable results, IF the people of them have quality information about their society, its difficulties, its potentials, its shortcoming and problems.

In the light of that factor. There is no point in trying to change systems until we assure that the one we have is optimized. Such a path is the shortest to functional political harmony and the least fraught with potential disastrous failures.

 

[ABT]

The draft of the revised First Amendment includes an ancient philosophical doctrine, and I think its necessary for this country or any country to remain free and united.

The premise of this thread is that a lawful and peaceful revolution can be made, but human unity is required. The powers that be have done everything possible to destroy human unity in America. This is the true challenge.

Strictly speaking, if the framers intended Americans to be able to alter or abolish, they intended for Americans to be unified. Logically they only way that will happen and continue is for free speech to serve the purpose of doing so.

Essentially, implied in this view of the Declaration of Independence framing the intent for the constitution, is that Americas government has the legal duty to assure Americans are adequately united to abolish said government in case it ever becomes destructive to unalienable rights.

The ancient doctrine is one of human culture. Family, community in unity. It is called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" and was presented to the framers Franklin, Jefferson and Washington. Of course it was removed from written history by elements associated with loyalists, but the Indigenous people of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy keep oral histories and they communicated it to me long ago.

Through a practice of free speech between people, and understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The draft revision includes that because the doctrine is the quickest path for government to promote unity amongst the people. It also provides a standard for which speech the government may choose to support in addition to allow in order to promote unity.

Government has a history of promoting positive communications for the peoples benefit. PBS, NPR, public access television, etc. The reason it does is because the elite have a conscious. They are not all bad. Amongst them are those descended from loyalists, then there are others descended form those that created the Magna Carta. They know what they took from the people when they removed the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" from the American people. The good ones know how important it is and when possible, they make moves to try and return some of that value to us.

Such effort however are inadequate to empower the unity needed to alter or abolish. Therefore, we must lawfully and peacefully revolt by invoking the intentions of the Declaration of Independence, expressed in the constitution to control our states which now hold the power to alter or abolish.

What, in your mind, prevents the vice commoner head from corruption?

You are treating this as though people are perfect. Your entire system relies on the participants plating their roles without errors. If that were possible then communism would be a perfect solution to government. Unfortunately people are not perfect and they will always drift toward money and power. No position can be made incorruptible. More money just places a person in that position in a form of elitism right from the start.

You need to start over with the assumption that if allowed corruption will seep into any system.

The overseer, while able to be kicked out every 3 years by the VCH, can also checked by the other 2 cabinets every 6. So lets for example make if the VHC and Overseer both elected on the same year for simplicity. lets say the Overseer corrupts the VHC.

What is needed is a graphic flow chart of the hierarchy of authority that shows how the political system is linked up.

The points where democratic influence has effect need to be shown.

My whole focus is that information needed to vote with an informed opinion is NOT AVAILABLE unless you already have an informed opinion, and know it. Such is not an easy state. I know many people that think they know, Then I start asking them, and we both realize they don't know.

What I'm trying to say is that it is quite possible that many different political systems could produce acceptable results, IF the people of them have quality information about their society, its difficulties, its potentials, its shortcoming and problems.

In the light of that factor. There is no point in trying to change systems until we assure that the one we have is optimized. Such a path is the shortest to functional political harmony and the least fraught with potential disastrous failures.

I do agree with a lot of your argument Christopheria and i will make sure to work on the flow chart for you. As for the matter at hand, if you wish to see the fullest potential of democracy, equal public education of both masses and minority races must be installed. Right now, the neighborhood/environment of a member of society lives in can dictate the future and education (lifestyle for his/her entire life) of that member. Crime and punishment laws as well need to be revised and focus more on the intent of the crime and rehabilitation. Do i believe democracy has a lot of potential? Yes i truly do only in the right way in the right environment. But look at Haiti at this very moment. Cuba and Haiti started off the same way. The difference: Castro provided jobs for the masses. This communist based county right now has a 98% literacy rate. Haiti has right now a 90% illiteracy rate. Haiti has a greater need for mine system than America has for mine; as America can still be saved. However back to the US , providing education to the masses to give them a political platform on which to stand on united may be on the right path if u stand by the system.

 

[pauls]

OK! Hold it right there.
The United States is not and never has been a democracy. We have a constitutional Republic where in the rights of the individual outweigh the desires of the majority.
No matter how many people vote to do away with free speech we have that right bestowed upon us when we are born. Government and the majority of the people do not bestow that right, it is a natural right of all free men (and women). Government is meant to protect that right and all our rights - which they have failed to do and the American sheeple have, for the most part, accepted the way things are.

Who will inform the public without bias or opinion? The press won't because they have become part of a system of political change. The schools won't because they are now controlled by the federal government which is slipping toward socialism.

Freedom of the press is being used as a tool to control the thought processes of the masses. They do this with a constant menu of information and TV that, over time, changes attitudes to conform to what is expected of them by the government. Critical thinking is not taught in schools so the media message is sucked up by non-thinking individuals as though it was the word of God!

There is only one way that I know of to do away with the corruption of government officials. GET RID OF THEM! There is no need of a representative government. We can communicate around the globe in seconds. Educating the people is the real hard one. I see no way to prevent corruption in education except in making people work for it. People tend toward laziness and in a free society they are free to be lazy. We can make the people take over the congressional branch of the government but in doing so we have to protect the individual from the ignorant by instituting a "constitutional council" to prevent unconstitutional bills from being put to a vote.

 

[Christophera]

OK! Hold it right there.
The United States is not and never has been a democracy. We have a constitutional Republic where in the rights of the individual outweigh the desires of the majority.
No matter how many people vote to do away with free speech we have that right bestowed upon us when we are born. Government and the majority of the people do not bestow that right, it is a natural right of all free men (and women). Government is meant to protect that right and all our rights - which they have failed to do and the American sheeple have, for the most part, accepted the way things are.

Who will inform the public without bias or opinion? The press won't because they have become part of a system of political change. The schools won't because they are now controlled by the federal government which is slipping toward socialism.

Freedom of the press is being used as a tool to control the thought processes of the masses. They do this with a constant menu of information and TV that, over time, changes attitudes to conform to what is expected of them by the government. Critical thinking is not taught in schools so the media message is sucked up by non-thinking individuals as though it was the word of God!

There is only one way that I know of to do away with the corruption of government officials. GET RID OF THEM! There is no need of a representative government. We can communicate around the globe in seconds. Educating the people is the real hard one. I see no way to prevent corruption in education except in making people work for it. People tend toward laziness and in a free society they are free to be lazy. We can make the people take over the congressional branch of the government but in doing so we have to protect the individual from the ignorant by instituting a "constitutional council" to prevent unconstitutional bills from being put to a vote.

pauls wrote:
"OK! Hold it right there.
The United States is not and never has been a democracy. We have a constitutional Republic where in the rights of the individual outweigh the desires of the majority."

Agreed, and judicious use of the word "desires".

However, there is a potentially democratic mechanism. I say "potentially" because that is left up to us, living the day where such may be needed. Very wisely so I will add.

pauls wrote:
"No matter how many people vote to do away with free speech we have that right bestowed upon us when we are born."

True, but there is a disservice or neglect to the ultimate purpose of free speech inherent to what you post. No ones going to vote to do away with free speech. I would ask that they vote to officially define that free speech has an ultimate purpose. And that purpose is to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights.

Currently, that purpose cannot be served, and the constitution may be destroyed because of it. Accordingly, the purpose needs to be defined and agreed upon so widely that the American people demand their states provide a vote upon an revision to the First Amendment to include that purpose.

In this case, democracy is fully, constitutionally justified in controlling the principles of the republic.

The people are not sheep, but they have been slowly converted into beings resembling sheep by the elite taking advantage of the fact that the purpose of free speech is NOT defined.

pauls wrote:
"Who will inform the public without bias or opinion? The press won't because they have become part of a system of political change. The schools won't because they are now controlled by the federal government which is slipping toward socialism."

Agreed completely. But, with the draft revision of the First Amendment, the people will be able to educate the people. When this happens the media and schools will be properly shamed. When the people are educated, further amendment may be deemed necessary to prevent the media and schools from ever doing again what they have done.

I do not think "slipping toward socialism." is quite right. It looks like that because the powers that be do not want it looking like tyranny. It is an oligarchy that can shift to a tyrannical structure of even dictatorship with socialist interests compelling it under extreme duress.

pauls wrote:
"Freedom of the press is being used as a tool to control the thought processes of the masses. They do this with a constant menu of information and TV that, over time, changes attitudes to conform to what is expected of them by the government."

Very true in character, but not precise. "Freedom of the press" does not exist in a constitutional sense, just like corporations can not exist in a constitutional sense. Between the deficiency in the First Amendment omitting the purpose of free speech, and individual rights conferred to corporations, a mechanism of usurpation of human evolutionary program has been instituted. Our ability to source natural law known by our instincts is being seriously blunted. This is beyond criminal. It is a betrayal of our species and all life on the planet. Truly and unGodly thing.

pauls wrote:
"There is only one way that I know of to do away with the corruption of government officials. GET RID OF THEM! There is no need of a representative government."

True enough in the long run, but in the immediate short term, because of the disability caused by the abrading of the natural law PURPOSE of free speech, and the actions of media you describe, the people are not ready for what you describe But it would not take terribly long to be ready. Perhaps 10 years of extensive education by media which is purified by amendment and public pressure, and Americans could do as you say.

But the motive to do that will not be known until the truth of what has been done is known. Free speech will have to serve its purpose for awhile, then, properly shocked, the public could be ready for political action as you describe.

 

[Christophera]

We can make the people take over the congressional branch of the government but in doing so we have to protect the individual from the ignorant by instituting a "constitutional council" to prevent unconstitutional bills from being put to a vote.

Yes, and that council could be created and exist through the purpose of free speech manifested properly with the full intent of the purpose to not just serve to enable the unity needed to alter or abolish, but also provide such constitutional control over government that it never gets close to being destructive to unalienable rights.

paula wrote:
"There is no need of a representative government. We can communicate around the globe in seconds."

True, but our communications can be cognitively fouled by covert groups presenting themselves as sincere individuals. What is needed is technology that uses our opinion to sort the communications making those which are most agreed upon REASONABLY also the most visible.

This is a software concept I conceived of in 2003 called "Poll to Post". In order to post, a person must reply and respond with poll responses which are backed up with text reasoning. Those poll responses, if approved of and reinforced, then take that post and those supporting it with reason and make them most visible by the function of a database which positions the post and associated responses at the top of a thread, or a thread at the top of a forum.

 

[pauls]

To be honest with you, it appears that you are taking what should be a simple process and complicating it to circumvent the human possibilities for error. I think you should consider that the more complex a system is, the more failure points you have. See if you can simplify it down to the necessary components to make it work and then take out any more that isn't absolutely necessary.

At least you are thinking about it - That is better than the rest of the population.
This process has started me thinking and writing. Maybe one of us can network with others and come up with a way to save the republic before the oligarchy turns into a socialist state.

 

[Christophera]

To be honest with you, it appears that you are taking what should be a simple process and complicating it to circumvent the human possibilities for error. I think you should consider that the more complex a system is, the more failure points you have. See if you can simplify it down to the necessary components to make it work and then take out any more that isn't absolutely necessary.

At least you are thinking about it - That is better than the rest of the population.
This process has started me thinking and writing. Maybe one of us can network with others and come up with a way to save the republic before the oligarchy turns into a socialist state.

Yes, it is a simple process.

I've decided that part of the dumbing down from 1912 on was to remove common understandings and create common divisions and tolerance for them over unity needed to control government. Very subtle influences of media over generations that created what what were artificially made to appear and feel socially as "okay". That creates complexity to undo.

I have a feeling Americans 100 years ago would have no problem with the prime constitutional intent and legal due process leading to "alter or abolish" through Article V.