slug.com slug.com

1 1

It seems we got a mixed bag as far as election results. While it is trending towards looking that we picked a senile swamp creature empty suit with a gang of socialists animating him..... Republicans have had gains in the House, kept the Senate and gained huge in the state legislations and governorships.
Now, is it enough that team Biden will be limited in how much damage he can do to the county?
Will Pelosi keep her leadership roll?
There is much consternation among democrat circles because the blue wave didn't happen and realization that the radical left really hurt them. Turns out that pushing socialism around latinos that have fled such ideas wasn't a good idea. Turns out that talking about defunding the police doesn't resonate well in neighborhoods that have been begging for more police presence for their own safety, doesn't fly well. Who would have imagined that?
Where does our republic go from here? Does the election do enough to limit the impact of those wanting to scrap the country and fundamentally transform everything?

SeanT 5 Nov 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

A Representative government is outdated and fundamentally encourages corruption. Technically we can do better. Morally, we have to...

Power in general encourages corruption. Our system attempts to limit the power government has and tries to make sure that power isn't concentrated in one person or group. So all government systems lead to corruption. So you would replace it with?????

@SeanT I call it Direct Government. Decisions made by individuals that care and want to be involved. I've pretty much got the foundational concepts worked out - working on a viable transition plan now. A book may come eventually (unless I die first).

Here's one of the foundational concepts:
Government exists for one purpose - To protect people from violence.
The potential for violence come from two classes of threat:

  1. External threats (between members of different jurisdictions)
  2. Internal Threats (between members of the same jurisdiction)

@cRaZyTMG so if that is the only purpose of government, people will manipulate the meaning of violence to suit their own corrupt agenda. The world is a violent place and nature is inherently violent.
So who decides what individuals participate in this Direct Government? What you describe is a form of democracy that will still corrupt people, still lend itself to tyranny and authoritarianism.

@SeanT
Definitions are part of the foundational document(s). Membership in the jurisdiction is open to anyone that meet the requirements defined in the foundational document(s).

I agree, the world is a violent place and nature is inherently violent. However, once life sustaining needs have been met, perceived equity is the source for all interpersonal disputes. Direct government provides methods to address internal disputes between members and maintains the capability to overwhelm threats of violence from external threats.

I also agree that direct government is a form of democracy with a couple of significant changes to ensure corruption can be managed (e.g. no representation permitted).

One of those changes is the requirement for any additions/changes to the foundational document(s) requires 51% of ALL members to agree - not just the ones who vote. Winning 51% in a proposal vote where only 40% of the members vote, really means the motion fails. Not Voting defaults to a vote against the proposal. If 51% of members do nothing - things stay the same.

Another major change is any individual profiting from the operation of government eliminates the right to vote. Collecting any wealth from government eliminates the right to vote. Be it a salary, a stipend, a honorarium, a contract or even participation in an organization that profits from government, you cannot vote. Call it what you want, you cash a government cheque you lose your right to vote.

The most significant change is the ability to withdraw or cancel your membership a any time for any reason.

@cRaZyTMG So it is rule by an elite class that meets certain requirements. That's still not good and you'd still have corruption and power disputes.
Once essential needs are met.... there are many sources of interpersonal disputes that are not about perceived equity. The communists tried to create an equity based system and it killed 100 million people in the 20th century. We are better off striving for equality of opportunity and let the outcomes be whatever they may be. Striving for equality of outcomes is not a reasonable thing. People do not have equal skills, equal amounts of abilities, equal amounts of persistence, equal IQs, or even equal interest in being successful..... so you will not get equal outcomes.

@SeanT Membership in a jurisdiction is voluntary. Ultimately, the individual is a jurisdiction with a membership of one. How is that elitist?

Jealousy and insouciance are a part of human nature. Of course, it will always exist. A system that limits the ability for it to exploit others is the aim of good government. Direct government mainly addresses that "sin" by limiting government to only the prevention of violence. The inability to profit from government is another major corruption disincentive.

Outcomes depend on skill and work ethic. I agree. Where did I mention equality of outcomes as a part of direct government?

@cRaZyTMG equality of outcomes has been the goal of systems based of equity vs. equality. Equity also gets to another part you glossed over slightly.... "once everyone has what they need" you said earlier.... ok, how? Governments only have what they take from others. The SJW types like to say that it is only fair to take more and more from those that THEY have decided have more than those people need. The SJWs take it upon themselves to decide what's someone's fair share is that the government should take from them... all in the name of equity.... so others can have what they need.
The problem with that is then you make people work for the benefit of others.... without significant choice in the matter.... suddenly you are stealing people's time, their freedom, and their labor. It is similar to this idea of coercive rights.... rights that only can exist by making others do things. Like the supposed "right to healthcare" which for that to exist, medical professionals have to see you and have to treat you. What if none are available? What if they are so overworked that they say no? In societies based on equity, this does happen and often someone gets drug off to some kind of gulag. Reality is that nobody has the right to make others work for them or to just give them any product or service.... even the service of healthcare.

@SeanT I am repeating myself...
"Outcomes depend on skill and work ethic. I agree. Where did I mention equality of outcomes as a part of direct government?"

However, you do ask some important and clarifying questions that I can answer wrt Direct Government, so here goes...

"once everyone has what they need" you said earlier.... ok, how?"
I was speaking to the basic needs as in the "Rule of 3's" 3 mins without air, 3 hrs without shelter, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food. [en.wikipedia.org]. Without these, the fight or flight instinct dominates civil discourse. As to "How?", I can only point you to the history of mankind. Without violence there are three recourse's: Labour and/or Trade and/or Charity.
Governments' only role in these activities is to recognize the potential for the use of violence as as a means of acquisition and provide systems to resolve disputes. It is not government role to use violence to redistribute the resources (as you rightfully point out is theft) or to limit the application of the peaceful means of acquisition eg. tariffs, subsidies, licenses, fees, etc. (SJW demands are more about perceived equity than true needs.)

"right to healthcare"
No such thing. Government has no role in healthcare. Period.

As an aside, I appreciate your responses. It requires me to think through my ideas that so far have only been demonstrated as workable in relatively small tribes (families?). My vision is using technology to enable small tribes to become larger without festering corruption. Fundamentally, I think we agree. I do believe human beings are capable of peaceful cooperation to improve the quality of life without violence.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:147907
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.