Democratic vs undemocratic

This is interesting. One could make the argument that even in a democracy there are still people who disagree with the politicians in power, so they must have some level of protection. But then how come that “authoritarian” leaders who supposedly oppress the general population are so well liked that they interact openly and physically with the people?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that in democracies, although technically everybody has a vote nobody’s vote influences politics to a significant extent, so all other factors equal, people are just as unhappy/happy as in authoritarian societies. Seriously, what’s the big difference between not being able to vote and having 0% influence and being able to vote and having 0.000001% or so influence? It’s completely insignificant.

One big difference between authoritarian and democratic societies is that in authoritarian societies, since it is made clear that politicians have power and the people do not, all responsibility will be placed on politicians and if they do a bad job, woe be unto them - the people may get pissed off and riot, or even start a revolution and overthrow the authoritarian government.
But in democratic governments if politicians do bad things, they will not be held responsible because you, the average Joe, supposedly picked them, even though you practically had no influence on who gets picked. So people tend to put undue responsibility and blame on themselves which prevents them from questioning and overthrowing a corrupt political order because it gives them an illusion of choice and thus responsibility for that choice.

Voting only truly matters if it is restricted to a small portion of the population so that each individual vote has a reasonable influence on the outcome. Otherwise it’s just a sham to keep people obedient and sheepish.

The problem is not with the votes (as long as the election is not rigged) the problem is with the candidates.

The candidates need to be randomly picked citizens who agree or disagree to run for office and these government positions assumed by average citizens are done at the lower levels, so people get experience governing before they, the lower governors, are again randomly picked to voluntarily assume a position up the chain of command, at each level of government, learning to govern successfully, then at some point those who have governed from the bottom to the top will be randomly chosen for the highest positions. Those few chosen randomly who voluntarily succeeded from the governments ground floor up would be elected into the top governmental offices.

The big election would occur for the highest position, but all those running would have a long record of government service and hopefully would be very knowledgeable about their positions/jobs.

In my type of government, you would have to rig the random citizen generator. You could not buy a seat with money or power.

Did you understand my last post about the formulation of a new structure of government, of how government positions are filled, and how those governors move up the ladder? First, did it make sense? If not, what’s unclear or imprecise?

Well let me premise this by saying, if you aren’t doing things in the best way, the “right way”, then you are necessarily doing them the “wrong way”. The intellectual challenge is to find the best way (considering the diverse circumstancing potentially involved), not merely a potentially good way. Given any one situation, there is only one best way (SAM Co-ops based upon MIJOT pursuit).

But now:

  • Did I understand the post? I think so.
  • Did it make sense? Well, yes and no. The reasoning was cohesive, but a bit presumptuous.
  • What is unclear or imprecise? It is a bit unclear as to why a candidate would be chosen who doesn’t want to be in that position (which will turn out to be the more sane people). What is imprecise is first, the presumption that choosing comes from an above social authority and second, is reflected in the consequences of choosing randomly when the population is more insane than sane (including “undereducated”). What happens in a society when the “lower” echelon governors are insane. Currently that lower level is the parents, “randomly” assigned by lower nature. What happens if they didn’t want to be parents? Merely look around in order to see what happens when they are undereducated and/or insane (“not knowing right from wrong”). The randomness stems from below, not from above.

Just above the families, there are the PTAs, churches, gangs, or other social clubs and organizations, also already “randomly chosen” due to the fact that the random parents are choosing them based upon their personal insanity style.

And then above those are the more strategical manipulators, seemingly randomly chosen due to the lower level random choosing going on. The manipulators present the image of being chosen by the somewhat insane population so as to reduce rebellion, “Hey, I am only here because you elected me.” Of course, such elections are almost always manipulated by one or more people strategically promoting their own favor (e.g. “He is a Zionist, so let’s speak of all of the great goodness of him and silence those who would defame him”).

And then above all of that are the even more strategical manipulators utilizing more hidden influences: “He who reigns in darkness, rules the world”.

It is through randomness that the current situation of high manipulation, anti-randomness, has occurred. And it forms structure and the power to choose, either for good or bad, simply because it is no longer random, but strategic. When a society is random, it is insane and either gets overtaken or dies.

It seems in an effort to overcome the manipulation, you are suggesting more randomness should be instilled. Yes, that would disrupt the manipulation schemes, but then the consequences are that the stable ability to intentionally elect randomly in only that specific manner, the ability to maintain that governing scheme, is itself the potential and probable victim of random events stemming from an insane population. Social structure and authority depend upon preventing randomness in favor of educated strategic planning. Once you lose that ability to ensure a specific future, you lose the ability to choose how you get to your future governing state and what happens afterward. In short, you die out as a method.

I agree that some specific things should be more random and far, far less manipulated, but trying to dictate randomness seems even more fatal than trying to dictate order. By dictating order, at least one has a chance to do it again. The trick is to promote the exact right type of order such that the result is altruistic, not egocentric. That isn’t trivial at all, but what SAM Co-ops are designed to handle.

I prefer tribal dictators myself introducing some dictatorial competition. Think feudalism and warlords only for the modern age instead.

Sure, there is always going to be some guy in charge but if that guy isn’t me, why bother?

One guy to rule the world? :laughing: World is too large for one man to manage.

You probably haven’t read much about SAM Co-ops, but they are largely similar to tribes interlinked through specific means so as to choose when to cooperate into a greater unified force, yet void of mass deceit.

You cannot get people to cooperate with each other on their own, never going to happen.

Nothing is ever “on their own”.

I’m just saying cooperation doesn’t work without some form of coercion or compulsion.

It is typical for the Occidental culture, especially in these days, that thou shalt not found out who the ruler is. Preferably, the real ruler should not be more known than a variable in a functional equation of an infinitesimal calculus. This means that you have to do a certain mathematical homework before you can find out who the real ruler is. Since: Thou shalt not found out who the ruler is! :obscene-smokingred:

Unfortunately, the Occidental society becomes more and more random (anarchic, chaotic, "entropical“) or, as you say, "insane and either gets overtaken or dies“, or it just gets "frozen“ (when there is e.g. no interest anymore in overtaking it).

JSS wrote

Everyone who is a natural born, adult citizen who is free, not imprisoned of this country only, can be chosen. Any who are chosen may decline the responsibility to participate and serve, however they may be chosen again at some point in their future.

First, our government is a social authority?
Second, that insanity would be inescapable whether the insane choose to run or are asked to, they still fill most seats of our governments but at least this way there is no built-in deception by the participants aka candidates/elected and way less corruption for there wouldn’t be any party affiliations, no long term corporate buyouts by lobbyists, but every man or woman for himself for a two-four year term and they are recycled to be randomly chosen for the next higher up echelon of local, state, or national government. A government run on the fly as needed, long term projects would have to be continued by the newbies who entered the governing arena, in this way they could be reevaluated and improved before completed. I know…I’m being too positive. :-k If terms of service are staggered by years then there would always be a few more knowledgeable to help the newbies transition.

People who publicly choose to run for government are the worst of the worst these days. We need a new modus operandi.
Also, I like when citizens vote on bills. So the major bills would have to be streamlined without hundreds of pages of last, minute add-ons. Ten sentences describe the bill…and bam…done. Yea or nay people? People could vote via any interactive technology on a government agenda/happenings website.

Let me put it this way:
For sake of governing people, you are given only the following choice to make:
A) Maintain only that you are to always allow the combined wisdom of the entire world to make any serious decision.
B) Presume one particular method (other than A above) to always be the best for every decision.

Which would you choose? Is democracy ALWAYS the best thing to do? Is Socialism, Communism, Kings, Religion? How do you know what is wisest at any given time? SAM Co-ops merely insist that one earnestly listen to the wisdom of all, before making decisions about governing others. How can you beat that?

In Sight of SAM, I Am

Too many people now associate the word “Corporation” with malevolent money grubbing entities. SAM has nothing to do with money grubbing, so I changed to “Co-operative” or “Co-op”.

The fundamental construct of the SAM Co-op is the CRH - Constitution for Rational Harmony:

It is far more effective than living alone or with merely a partner simply because it offers an immediate “circle of close-nit friends” as well as a global network of strategies and information (the Angel Network). It is like having a doctor, lawyer, accountant, philosopher, and neurologist all in the family and dedicated to the “family”.

All individuals have different conflicting self serving interests therefore common mutual interests for everybody equally is a lie or delusional thinking at its finest.

Who said anything about “common mutual interests for everybody equally”?

There is no such thing as “equal” except in mathematics. There are definitely “common mutual interests” among small groups, else there would be no small groups. SAM is merely a means to bring sanity and learning into the picture.

With a SAM Co-op, everyone is always an active member, but not necessarily an officer?

How is corruption avoided in a SAM scenario?

Isn’t 50 ppl. about 25 too many?

I still don’t understand how it would be set up, with self or group nominations and elections?

True. And they can switch around. It remains up to them.

Primarily because everything is “open-source”. The reasoning for doing anything and everything is not only formally stated, but required to be upheld as stated. No matter what you are doing, the reason for it must be satisfied. Vague ambiguity of purpose or intent is strongly avoided (verification of satisfaction is usually required). And then on top of that, everything is always open for deeper inquiry to investigate better reasoning. Usually the initial reasoning for doing anything isn’t the best reasoning and often isn’t the best plan, so in light of new ideas or information, change is but one formal discussion away. A single person in a single day can potentially change the entire game … other than the SAM Constitution.

For some, but not others. A SAM Co-op only requires 4 members to initiate the fundamental structure, after that, it is a matter of maintaining representation, awareness, and resources. Just as parts of your body would atrophy if the nerves and blood become too restricted, if a group grows too large, people become too unattached to what is really going on and why. Purpose in living gets confused and conflated when people are not involved in the reasoning or not properly represented. How attached do you feel to Congress?

Initially it is by whatever reasoning the initial members can muster up. It doesn’t really matter why or even how stupid they might be. After the structure is formed decisions begin taking on rationality and who moves into what position is up to that rationale. And of course, what rationale is first chosen is seldom the best, so later it can all change again … but always via the congressional/parliamentary procedure of open debate.

Since MIJOT, Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time, is the “supreme goal”, all reasoning is based upon that concern. And any reasoning that proves to be better at achieving that goal gets immediately implemented. Voting or even your “random assignments” can be a part of the better reasoning concerning many issues, as long as the highest authority remains as the SAM structure. In other words, voting or random assignments can only be implimented as long as the proper reasoning proved them to be the better way to handle the specific situation.

Between the required open-source reasoning and the goal of MIJOT, the group becomes very stable. The only issue is that new comers come from such an extremely different society, they can’t quite comprehend it for a while. Once accustom to it, it is almost too easy. People expect problems that never arise; (e.g. “Don’t I have to campaign or gather a petition?” - Not at all).

Without equality mutuality is a lie. There is cooperation where people have the same goals or aspirations working together but there is no sense thing as mutual benefit because nobody benefits from anything in the same manner. Cooperation can be voluntary but usually it is coerced.

?? That doesn’t seem to make sense. On a hot day, a man and his dog find a supply of water. The need and refreshment are “mutual”, yet they are hardly equal.

But they benefit differently, it’s one of the biggest pet peeves I have with the word mutual.