Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 Back on track again. The matter of a Declaration of Independence A declaration of independence or declaration of statehood or proclamation of independence is an assertion by a polity in a defined territory that it is independent and constitutes a state. Such places are usually declared from part or all of the territory of another state or failed state, or are breakaway territories from within the larger state. Though the state from which the territory wishes to secede may regard the declaration as rebellion, which may lead to a war of independence or a constitutional settlement to resolve the crisis. So far Wikipedia about it. Present day environment in context of independence Many of the villains responsible for the present day shit show are operating worldwide. And with the push of the WEF and others their grip worldwide will only get firmer. SME’s are in the last 2 years brought to their knees if not pushed into bankruptcy. Clearing the way for a take over of business by the big guys. Because these conglomerates operate worldwide, it doesn’t make sense to strife for direct democracy only in small local communities. They would still be dependent on those conglomerates and could be easily isolated from the rest of the world by them, in an attempt to make them compliant to whatever they want. Same goes for the international cooperation between the national polyarchies, as we have witnessed in the last 2 years, if not longer. The polyarchies are effectively already ruling the world, a fragmented but working world government. A local community would not be able to withstand the, possible violent, pressure of these tyrants. So, my vision is to attempt, in answer to the global operating powers, a global introduction of a direct democracy system. I know, this is a very ambitious vision and it will not be an easy task to complete. What helps though, is that a large part of the global population was already poor and in a bad situation, and the recent pandemic has made that even worse. The last decade has seen a growing awareness among these impoverished people of how they get pummeled and abused by the tyrannical powers of this world. Unfortunately, low level of education and the daily energy expenditure on getting the basic needs filled, prevents these people from working on a solution for their problem. As I see it, their problem has now also become our problem. Although the 1st and 2nd world is doing still not too bad, economical and wealth wise seen, it has become a downhill ride for us. With the threat of a collapse of our distribution systems in sight, food and other goods might become scares very soon, and that most likely results in an inflation spiraling out of control. If that happens, you will soon find that your money is not buying much anymore, and you can even end up struggling to pay for your daily necessary groceries. Not a wild fantasy, it recently happened in Venezuela and survivors of the Weimar Republic (now more than 100 years old!) can tell us horrifying stories about wheelbarrows full of paper money to buy a loaf of bread. Most people don’t realize this is just over the horizon, and prefer to look the other way for now. But when it arrives, we’re in the middle of it with no way out. The solution that our governments will offer is already known; all old money becomes worthless, everyone gets 100 whatever currency they come up with, and the hole circus starts anew. Rinse and repeat tactics, long term one that is. What this all effectively does for you, is placing you on the same level of poverty as the poorest in the 3rd world. Whatever wealth you had, is completely destroyed. Now those people and you are in the same boat. Reason to seek cooperation between all people of the world. What are our options? After literally millennia of waves of tyranny plagues, technology makes it now possible to counter the next move the tyrants have in mind. The internet makes it possible to connect everyone with everyone. This can be used as a tool to reach out to the world’s peoples and inform them about the solutions we have come up with. It can start with reaching out to people you know in foreign countries and explain them the plan to introduce a worldwide direct democracy that will put an end to tyranny they have endured for so long. You can help them to understand how it works, what the benefits are, what the responsibilities are, and above all the freedom they will gain in such a system. These people can in turn approach friends and family to spread the message and so on. At reaching a certain threshold (critical mass) it is time to have all pledge allegiance to the constitution of the Confederation of People of the World and support the declaration of independence. This is where things get tricky, I guess. Possible pitfalls If the declaration of independence aims to have a territory secede from a state, violence will be the likely answer of the rulers of that state. And violence is what we want to avoid. Besides, most people are not willing to risk their life. So, I do not consider that to be a viable option. What then? The internet doesn’t recognize state borders, conglomerates don’t recognize them, polyarchies don’t care about them. For all the world is their oyster, why shouldn’t that be the same for the rest of us? MacDonalds has restaurants all over the world, still it is one company. Facebook has offices everywhere in the world, but it is one company. I’m sure you can come up with much more examples like that. So, why wouldn’t it be possible to have one global community with its members everywhere in the world? It’s NOT a country, it’s NOT a State, it’s NOT a territory, what should we call it? A federation of people? Maybe. A federation of people is just as legally valid as a federation of states. A federation of people with its own constitution, which makes them a citizen of that federation. A federation that can issue a declaration of independence for her citizens. Independence from the state they live in, independence from the government that WAS imposing their tyrannical rule on them. A federation with its own constitution, its own direct democratic government system by the people and for the people, and independence from any state or country in the world. A federation with its own judicial system and laws and which takes care of their own citizens. Even its own currency is possible. And if the citizens of that federation refuse to support the governments in their respective countries, those governments will loose their power over them. Without their tax money, those governments will soon be emperors without cloths. In no way I assume the above is complete, or comprehensive enough to be used as a plan of action. For that I need your help to tweak and shape it into a plan that can be used for action. I’m looking forward to discuss this with anyone that wants to contribute to the completion of it. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, ink said: @Sheepy and @Ween Dwijler You literally will NOT answer a question will you .... lmfao That states all that anyone reading this thread (not threat as you posted ween) needs to know .... politicians trying to control conversation. Answer the questions! Ooh or what? you gonna be a mod? I don't have time for this fool. Edited November 3, 2021 by Sheepy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 If you will not answer about money (nor most anything else) .... then the problem with 6% overruling 94% in your system .... Do you consider that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, ink said: @Sheepy and @Ween Dwijler You literally will NOT answer a question will you .... lmfao That states all that anyone reading this thread (not threat as you posted ween) needs to know .... politicians trying to control conversation. Answer the questions! No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said: No. Because you have no answer .... is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, ink said: If you will not answer about money (nor most anything else) .... then the problem with 6% overruling 94% in your system .... Do you consider that correct? Well, that is not up to me to decide. I guess that at some point the framework for the direct democracy system has to be put up for voting by the people. After all, it's going to be their system, not mine. I only hope to be one of the N people that want this to happen. How about you? Are you in favor of a DD? Or do you rather see another system in place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, ink said: Because you have no answer .... is that correct? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said: Well, that is not up to me to decide. I guess that at some point the framework for the direct democracy system has to be put up for voting by the people. After all, it's going to be their system, not mine Exactly, now you are getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Without tackling the fundamental problems in society and learning from history DD would be a disaster, the Wisdom in the Crowds idea has historically proven to be wrong : It was Direct Democracy that condemned Socrates, It was Direct Democracy that condemned Jesus Yet when anyone brings up these arguments not limited to but for example money and psychopaths/sociopaths you refuse to discuss them 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said: How about you? Are you in favor of a DD? Or do you rather see another system in place? No actual system .... voluntarism .... please don't look at wiki and think that correct. My rights end where yours begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Diesel said: Without tackling the fundamental problems in society and learning from history DD would be a disaster, the Wisdom in the Crowds idea has historically proven to be wrong : It was Direct Democracy that condemned Socrates, It was Direct Democracy that condemned Jesus Yet when anyone brings up these arguments not limited to but for example money and psychopaths/sociopaths you refuse to discuss them Neither being true by the way, they were condemned by a hierarchy who were frightened by their stand and minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, ink said: No actual system .... voluntarism .... please don't look at wiki and think that correct. My rights end where yours begin. and to add to the above .... All the questions I asked you, I have an answer for .... I would not ask you to supply an answer for some question (within the framework of this current discussion/thread) which I had not a potential answer to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Sheepy said: Neither being true by the way, they were condemned by a hierarchy who were frightened by their stand and minds. Jesus was condemned to death by the crowds who did not want him pardoned. Direct Democracy Socrates was voted to death by his peers often quoted as an example of mob rule. Direct Democracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, Diesel said: Without tackling the fundamental problems in society and learning from history DD would be a disaster, the Wisdom in the Crowds idea has historically proven to be wrong : It was Direct Democracy that condemned Socrates, It was Direct Democracy that condemned Jesus Yet when anyone brings up these arguments not limited to but for example money and psychopaths/sociopaths you refuse to discuss them Sheepy already answered a part of it. Learning from history is certainly a thing we must do. Athens direct democracy did function for a couple of 100 years, but eventually it was replaced due to corruption and political machinations. And, also Switzerland has only true DD in 2 cantons, still with representative democracy above it, and the rest of the cantons have less of a DD than those 2. We can't be sure DD will work, the pure form. But the only way to find out is trying to develop it as good as we can and and when there is a concrete plan, check it by as many people as possible to find weaknesses in it. It will not be a quick job, all takes time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Just now, Diesel said: Jesus was condemned to death by the crowds who did not want him pardoned. Direct Democracy Socrates was voted to death by his peers often quoted as an example of mob rule. Direct Democracy And who explained the outcomes of either choice? nah not us guv, it was the crowd honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Diesel said: Jesus was condemned to death by the crowds who did not want him pardoned. Direct Democracy Socrates was voted to death by his peers often quoted as an example of mob rule. Direct Democracy Yes mob rule is a danger in DD. Thats why I think it might be better to work towards a model based on near consensus. Especially if the decision about someones life needs to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Ween Dwijler said: Yes mob rule is a danger in DD. Thats why I think it might be better to work towards a model based on near consensus. Especially if the decision about someones life needs to be made. It isn't even a problem because as I have taken the time to explain, nobody would be expected to vote on a policy unless they were given a clear choice and what either way the vote went the outcomes would be explained beforehand so your vote wasn't wasted. A bit of a false historical narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Sheepy said: It isn't even a problem because as I have taken the time to explain, nobody would be expected to vote on a policy unless they were given a clear choice and what either way the vote went the outcomes would be explained beforehand so your vote wasn't wasted. A bit of a false historical narrative. And how will you ensure the explanation is impartial, who would you choose to explain it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Sheepy said: It isn't even a problem because as I have taken the time to explain, nobody would be expected to vote on a policy unless they were given a clear choice and what either way the vote went the outcomes would be explained beforehand so your vote wasn't wasted. A bit of a false historical narrative. True, you've said that. 2 of the accusations against Socrates wouldn't even be possible in a new DD. They were of religious nature, and freedom of religion must be guaranteed in a new DD constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, Diesel said: And how will you ensure the explanation is impartial, who would you choose to explain it? In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for impiety. Socrates defended himself unsuccessfully. He was found guilty by a majority vote cast by a jury of hundreds of male Athenian citizens and, according to the custom, proposed his own penalty: that he should be given free food and housing by the state, for the services he rendered to the city. In the alternative, he proposed that he be fined one mina of silver (according to him, all he had). The jurors declined his offer and ordered the death penalty. The official charges were: (1) corrupting youth; (2) worshipping false gods; and (3) not worshipping the state religion. From the wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepy Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Just now, Diesel said: And how will you ensure the explanation is impartial, who would you choose to explain it? I would choose an impartial body to oversee each vote, not that most people wouldn't know for themselves anyway. Just like we spent years explaining before the EU referendum it wouldn't be easy and the outcome would mean the EU and the Westminster party would come after you at every opportunity. So, all those who after the vote said you didn't know what you were doing actually did. The toughest part about direct democracy is accepting you don't always win on a personal level. Like you asked about the monetary system if you want to change it you have to get a consensus and then you need to explain the fors and against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said: They were of religious nature, and freedom of religion must be guaranteed in a new DD constitution. As you have said .... even Satanism would be allowed in your DD .... How far do you allow the psychopaths to go in your DD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ween Dwijler Posted November 3, 2021 Author Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, ink said: As you have said .... even Satanism would be allowed in your DD .... How far do you allow the psychopaths to go in your DD? Not my decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Sheepy said: I would choose an impartial body to oversee each vote, You envision no problems with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Just now, Ween Dwijler said: Not my decision. So it is the decision of 6%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.9e99ff3727a52b51047711c51028c847.jpg)
.jpg.e0850aef2895b3e8c638a24da2b8f92e.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.