http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/blog/occupy-solutions/how-does-demo...
How Does Democracy Work in a Resource Based World Economy?
Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
What would happen if there were no limits on how you conduct your life, there were no laws or legislations, no politics or government, and no limits on the conditions of your life? Where does that leave democracy? It would be irrelevant and void of meaning.
In our society now, we have many limits upon our freedoms. We are limited to the resources we have access to based on the amount of money we have, we are limited to where we can travel throughout the world based on restrictions and policy of passports. We are limited on education based on the amount of loans we can get for college. We are limited on what home we can live in, limited on health care, limited on time, limited on almost every aspect of purchasing power; the list goes on and on. We do not live in a free society; we are restricted based on income and/ or policy at every turn.
Only in a society based on limits do people feel the need for what is known as "democracy." In a resource based economy, it’s not that you don't have democracy; it's that it's irrelevant because you are not limited. You conduct your own life based on how you see fit without any limitations. You don't need your voice heard because there are no restricts holding your voice down, there are no authorities to restrict you.
There have really been NO societies or movements in human history (until The Occupy Movement and TZM) that have had no leaders or controllers, so people have no examples to understand how such a system would work. Most assume it would be chaos without a commander organizing the whole show.
Here is a video showing exactly how this leaderless Occupy movement is extremely organized:
The reason this works is because people know what they have to offer and they know the information they have that can help the people involved, so they jump in and do their part. Unlike a controlled organization where everything is filtered and holding people back from contributing everything they have to give. Nothing is being asked of an uncontrolled organization, it is up to each individual to take initiative. They support the cause since they see the benefit in it.
If you want to help, you just do your part based on your skills and what you have to offer. It's as simple as that. When building a bridge, designing an aircraft reactor, installing a sewer system, building a medical laboratory; these are fields that only people who are trained and educated in these areas can participate. In other words, participation is based on what you are able to do.
When engineers are communicating on building a bridge there is no problem in the communication when it comes to the structure and process to carry out the completion of the bridge. The reason being is that all bridge engineers have the same exact information. When building a bridge everything is done by measurements and mathematics, there is no misinformation in the communication. Hence there is no gap in the translation since it is not based on interpretation, perspective, opinion, or any misinformation. When all bridge engineers are trained with the same up-to-date knowledge and information, there are no opinions in building a bridge, just a symptomatic format of information.
In other words, there's no democratic way or communistic way to design an aircraft reactor, a sewer system, a medical laboratory, or a bridge; since it's not based on opinion but up-to-date knowledge and training in relevant information to that given field. There's only an efficient way and a less efficient way, a way that works well and a way that doesn't work well, a way that is reliable and a way that gives constant trouble. If and when better ways are discovered on how to build and design such systems than the knowledge is updated according to the new information based on the scientific method of experimenting.
The Resource-Based World Economy system is not composed of opinions, beliefs, or groups of people based on ideas; everything is approached through the scientific method. The same method we all taught in school on how to find answers to problems (using this format terminates all forms of opinions or beliefs controlling or leading the system astray).You must be able to present facts for your beliefs or opinions. You must have verifiable evidence that what you claim is not just an opinion or belief for a selected few or group. With the scientific method everything is based on facts that can be proven and can be reconstructed by anybody.
If we don't apply the scientific method to all our approaches, the system will revert back to the same opinionated politics we have today in which the belief of a few are deemed effective for the whole of society.
Whatever else people decide to do based on similar beliefs, opinions, and ideas; they are welcome. There is no control. There is just an understanding that you can't participate where you don't have the skills or training.
Using this format to arrive at decisions each individual would have more control of their life than they can ever imagine possible because there are no limitations holding you back from being you. No money limits, no border limits, no purchasing power limits. No limits on health care, free education, no limits to the resources of life, etc. - since all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude (terminating all forms of manipulation and control). You lead your own life without restrictions on the manner it is lived; this is what true freedom is all about.
If you can follow and understand what is being said here; you will begin to see that democracy is a con game, it is a word invented to outplay people, to make them accept a given institution. All institutions sing ‘we are free’. The minute you hear ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ – watch out, because in a truly free nation, no one has to tell you that you’re free.
For more articles that address issues of the evolving times, please see: http://www.unitinghumans.com/
The resource based economic ideas continue to mystify me. We live in a world that does have limited resources. These discussions never explain who gets to decide who uses the limited resources available. It's all well and good that people can share when there's plenty but when there isn't enough, how is it decided who gets to use the limited resources and who's ideas get scrapped? The scientific method does not eliminate the need for value decisions - I feel that the people promoting these ideas have never lived and worked among scientists or even understand how the real world works. This video is really an example of a gift economy. The OWS movement would not be able to stay in a camp like that without the daily donations that are coing in. In a permanant situation, a means of generating food and shelter would need to be created. Hopefully, all would pitch in and the gift economy would continue. But I have to believe that at some point, some job would come along that absolutely no one wanted to do (like cleaning out the chicken coop!). Someone would willingly do it at first but then get sick of it and say - it's time for someone else to do this. Then it's lack of getting done would become a problem. Eventually someone would say - Ok, I'll do it but only if someone else will do x, y, z for me. That would be the birth of capitalism in the group. Not a bad thing, as long as all associations involved are voluntary but not a resource base economy. What am I not getting here?
You make the assumption that excludes free energy and sharing of resources. For instance in the USA alone 50% of all food is thrown out and goes to a landfill or pig farm.... meanwhile in Somalia there is no food.
The issue is based in greed and the failure to share resources resulting in hoarding.
As to doing jobs that are mundane or undisirable. That which needs doing gets done--- even shoveling shit when people organize themselves according to giftedness and a deep sense of sharing and responsibility. Love is the shift you are also assuming is absent.
It is with Love that the farmer (those who have this giftedness will naturally become farmers) coos to the chickens, feeds them the very best feed and provides a free range that is protected and through this LOVE willingly devises clever ways to deal with all that chicken shit so that all are taken care of--- the chicken, the farmer (s) and the Earth-Gaia and all the realms of Flora and Fauna that dine on Chicken Shit.
Fair Distribution
Free Energy
Love
These three attributes are interdependent. Nothing in a true Econony is seperate from one another--- all is inter-dependent and inter-related--- Including the care and feeding and shoveling of chicken shit.
I bless you with Love--
Fairy
Thank you Fairy,
I hope your vision of the future comes true. I think what I am now understanding is that the words resource based economy and gift economy are the same. If that is the case than I am totally on board.
In the original post it says,
"Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."
Just want to clarify something about democracy. Essentially it's the rule of the majority. And that can be as tyrranical as a dictatorship to the minority who get outvoted. Theoretically, a majority of 51% could vote to enslave the remaining 49%. That's democracy, and that's tyrrany. The oldest known democracy (for a short time), ancient Greece, was built on slavery, after all.
So, even if the citizens of our country did cast votes that were accurately recorded and reported and this is really what guided our national and state policies, we have never had a democracy. We have a Republic, which legally guarantees the rights of minorities because it guarantees the rights of the individual. So a majority can't take the rights and freedom away from any individual(s) because a Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of human beings just by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. This represents a true valuation of a human being. A democracy, like an autocracy or a dictatorship, doesn't embody that valueation; it could decide that rights and freedoms are granted to people by government (or the majority); but if these are granted, then they can be taken away. Not so with a Republic -- or at least the one we inherited from the founding fathers -- but which we've allowed the corporate and banking oligarchs to kill (practically).
But democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a republic implies democracy. So it could be said that we have a democratic Republic. A "pure" democracy is the potential horror. So a lot of blabbing about democracy without mention of a Repubilic is not music (to my ears, at least) (None of this is original thinking on my part; it's been said here before.)
I find it interesting that those who speak about freedom are the first to call for the end of democracy.
Fairy
AUTHOR:Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION:“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” ATTRIBUTION:The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
Elizabeth, I'm interested in your comment. Can you give me an example or two of people who speak about freedom but are calling for the end of democracy?
Thanks.
When ever the next step in Human Evolution comes up and the next step is Resource Based Economy--- or Social Organization--- those who proclaim they wish for freedom will in the same breath say "Down with Democracy."
What bothers me about "Down with Democracy" is it is a statement of militancy and it is a premature push to create something that not many are ready for.
The Quantum Leap we are all in right now is toward a resource based economy--- that is an evolution of consciousness.
I see the first stop on this evolution of consciousness begins with a more direct democracy-- as opposed to respresentational democracy. Interesting enough, the whole General Assembly process I have been observing and at time participating in is anything but direct democracy-- it is actually more like a limited majority rule-- meaning those who show up at the GA's speak the loudests and with the most verbosity and boorishness are heard and guide action and policy..
We are not ready to just chuck out the idea of democracy. We are however ready as a Collective Body of Humankind for a more direct democratic process and Ethical Capitalism.
Ethical Capitalism: Early indications this is already occuring is the tagging of companies that are unethical with renewed vigor, the slow food movement, buy local movement, fair trade movement etc. A renewed and vigorous interest in a living wage for all workers and a serious look at slave labor in the manufacturing of goods and services.
Direct Democracy: Early indications that this is already beginning to sprout up is in the renewed use of the Petition method to change local, state and some cases federal policies, the protesting world wide of people of all creeds, races and origins...
Direct Democracy is a Consensus Reality based on the principles of unity. This will be the next step before we can create something else---
So for those who proclaim "Down with Democracy" are often motivated by issues that have no relation to Unity Consciousness or Love. Instead their focus is on personal freedom without the responsibility that comes from that freedom toward the whole of the All (Earth, Cosmos, Humankind, Realms of Flora and Fauna). Instead of accurately seeing that the true issue is the Plutocracy and Negative Liberty as the issue, they tag Democracy as the Reason "for the evils in the world." I find this very telling and very interesting that those who proclaim Freedom call for the end of Democracy.
I bless all with Love
Fairy
We may find a glimpse of what we evolve to by looking at the Indigenous cultures of this planet. Western civilization turned from Mother Gaia to worship an invisible sky god considered to be separate from us. The Indigenous do not practice, nor do they understand this insane abstract notion of separation.
So maybe we go back to be able to go forward...
If the collective we on this planet don't get this right in time we (at least those who survive) will be blasted back into the stone age anyway. So one way or another we will go back to go forward. Drunvalo Melchizedek speaks on this...
The Founding Fathers intended America to be a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
A DEMOCRACY is mob rule. It is the enemy of individual rights and it victimizes the minority. In contrast, a REPUBLIC appoints leaders to administer the Law for the benefit of individuals.
Our founding fathers produced a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as some people falsely believe. In fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution does it mention democracy. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
EXAMPLE [OF DEMOCRACY VS. REPUBLIC]
Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.
Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.
The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a Democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
Hey Chris,
Just been thinking about something and it might fit here as well as anywhere.
I agree that we need to go back to go forward, it's so my nature...Lol...but how and what does that look like for society, nationalism, technology...etc ..we can only wonder but it is a cool thing to wonder about....
Indigenous people were all connected to the land.....they saw themselves as the guardians of the land.....and so the resources of the land were "owned' , entrusted, to all. Could we restore that in a modern world? maybe we could. To be able to again take responsibility for the land from a modern legal perspective "we" need to again "own" our land....all of ?,.."australia" belongs to all Australians...equally...and specifically in terms of it's non-renewable resources.
Imagine if the only way a "corporation" could get rights to non-renewable resources, anything that took a long long time to form, that they could be no more than ?...49% owner/shareholders of the company. The other 51% being the people of the country, and literally as individual share holders.
It could restore our response-ability......as a shareholder you have a voice, you can't sell your share, you can't get more shares, no one else can "vote" for you, and you get a dived-end, cash, each month?...same as every other shareholder will get.....you get it on all profit that might be made from that company/corporation. If the company loses and your ?..uranium was bad and you have to pay damages, you would be "legally" responsible for them as well.
Now that does get to the other parts of this thread dealing with the power and "fairness" of the majority/minority discussions, of which I really don't know, I can't say I trust in the 51% of people at this time in history but in the old indigenous existence it would probably have worked ok....I don't know lol.... but I think the idea of finding ways to again physically and legally make us responsible (response-able) is what returning to "indigenous" ways is about....I am hoping anyway...
because the other option might mean that going back really will mean going back, no need for digging anything up and maybe that always was forward...dunno, fun to think about though...
L
Jez
Following along the thoughts from Chris and Jez, in regard to what type of society is really true to the freedoms of all people. What comes to my mind regarding going back to the indigenous ways, is what did those ways offer and how did any of those societies develop beyond living with the earth and from the earth.
The truth is not many did, if we look at those that had developed into some form of society (take the mayans as example), they were a brutal lot with the very high ranking amongst them controlling the masses, complete with regular sacrifices to appease the Gods, here we have as said before the first step away from the collective and into worship of something outside of ourselves, this then became control by belief.
In the Americas we have the indigenous indians that although the individual groups lived with and close to the Earth, there were others that had the same fundamental base yet were interested in owning more of this land and were protective of there piece of the land, so wars occured between tribes, this was very relevant here in NZ a large portion of the Maori were extremely war based. Here we have society based on greed and wants.
I could be wrong here so please correct me where I am, it's just that I see nothing from our past that will pave the way forward. What is missing here is that we are developing as a species, we are wakeing from a very long sleep. We have learnt much in our dreams yet we are unsure as to how this New World could practically exist. The reason for this is that we all have our own ideas our own view of our world, and from this perspective we imagine what the New World might be like. This enivitably results in many and varied thoughts, ideas, and outcomes.
Take a step back from this and bring your core self to the front, we are all connected, at our source we are all one and the same, yet we are all individual projections of that one source. So if we do awaken to our true selves then we would all understand and all be of one voice, there is no other possible outcome from an awakening of our true nature.
From this viewpoint, life will not be a matter of who cleans the Chicken Coop, because the Chicken Coop will clean itself.
It is not so much up to us to create this new society, working out all the details on how it all comes together. As it is for us to be true to our individual selves, wake up and see our power, our wisdom, our love manifest all that will be. We limit ourselves by what we know, instead of braking the chains and truly living in the LIGHT.
(I sit here and ponder should I post this) The only reason I would not is for fear of either offence being taken or being looked upon as a fool with Utpoian ideals, yet I am among friends and I share because I can and I LOVE you all
indeed, native americans did war among themselves, and the fact that they didn't use genocidal techniques like the whites did against them, doesn't justify it. And, I have visited some of the mayan temples,in central america at least, and it is a weird vibe standing on those playing fields where the losers lost their heads. But, I do believe that the indigenous peoples had the right attitude towards the Earth. They were the caretakers, not the owners.
I think that moving forward will include ideals from the past that were working, and probably alot of ideas we haven't thought of yet, this excites me......hope you are well my brother !
What the indiginous people did right in my opinion, is that they were organized in small groups, so that individuals had a say in their community's ways.
Eyejay, I like your idea that by recognizing all are part of the one, then we can only take care of the all by totally respecting and taking care of the one. This is what a republic does - respects the rights of the one.
When we trust in each other as humans, and not (our organizational ideas=government), we really need very little government. I'm still concerned for the rights of the people who are willing to do the "cleaning the chicken coop" jobs. I think it's a basic part of human nature to put these jobs off until they become a problem. It's important that these people are compensated properly for doing what others would shun.