Solve the world’s major problems in a hierarchy of 3 points as brief as you can make them. Yeah I think that sounds crazy too.
- Create one small group using the Constitution of Rational Harmony
- Create one small group using the Constitution of Rational Harmony
- Create one small group using the Constitution of Rational Harmony
Then just sit back and watch the world remold itself.
Holy shucks!! I like the thread I started already.
Have you considered making this page into a refinement of everyone’s statements into one comprehensive constitution? I’m not saying so to demand more work. I’m saying so because I am very eager to read and understand this hypothetical constitution yet I’m afraid that my duties of life won’t permit me to get through that whole thing any time soon.
I’m not sure what you mean? 
The link is a conversation from here which apparently you all develop into this constitution, but it doesn’t conclusively end with a final agreed upon constitution. I would like to see that work to full completion and come out with one single hypothetical constitution. Unless it’s there and I’ve missed it?
Ever tried to achieve agreement of an entire group online (even if only 5)??
The best one can hope for in a forum environment is for the complaints to stop. Actual agreement is almost unknown. But certainly if there was a way to gather “signers”, I would be all for it. The structure of internet forums just doesn’t allow for that. Not to mention the prevailing fear of being a “joiner” who might actually stand out in the crowd rather than merely shout from a dark distance. It takes courage to challenge the status-quo.
That Constitution as presented in the Articles has actually been established in a real group in Oregon (it is easier to get signers in person). But the group was already on its deathbed, so it was a bit like applying CPR to a terminal cancer patient on his last day. No one ever really got to see it function. Its greatest weakness right now is simply that it is new and not really understood. People have to SEE it in action to “get it”.
================================================
That Constitution is actually an evolutionary advance from the US Constitution. As any embryo gets more sophisticated, it requires more motherly care as it develops, but yields a far more advance evolutionary maturity. It is being currently proposed in an environment that is in many ways more harsh than that of its ancestor, but in a few ways less so. In old England, I would have been arrested for merely discussing it and shipped off to Australia. In America, discussing it isn’t illegal, merely a little dangerous due to current hidden management methods.
Although stated fairly simply, the actual interactions that cause it to work are far more complex. Realize first that all, even the smallest decisions are being seen by all members at all times and always open for scrutiny. Every decision must stand up to counter rationale. It would be very difficult to maintain hidden agendas. Beyond the very beginning initial group, even Satan would have a hard time obscuring evil intent.
- kill everyone
steps 2 and 3 are no longer necessary.
“No man, no problem” -Josef Stalin
But in reality i have no idea how i would fix the world’s problems.
I have other documents I’ve written that try to propose a simple constitution along the lines of what James presents. But that’s for another thread.
Aside from the line contitutional line of reasoning I hit 3 things-
1 - Form a legal Entity which speaks entirely for Natural Resources. Take terms like “Crown land” and reassert them as points of commodity which no political entity has yet earned the rights to. The legal entity which claims entitlement has no legal power to utilize the land, only a philosophical basis of decision insofar as whom has rightfully positioned the right capital and the right reasoning to somehow improve or retain its state and also provide for its own sake. Thereby people can still use natural resources for personal greed, they just have to earn it. This likens the Canadian Homesteaders Act. It goes something like this: “You can live on the land if you can prove that you improve it in some way.” The Homesteaders act is not exactly modern, since its inception of improvement is the idea of bulldozing trees to make viable farmland. But at least we have a principal in mind. What the Homesteaders Act decrees for people, the Natural Resources Comittee (would one call it that?) does for nations.
2 - Isolate and mandate a solid monetary fund for international trade . . . shit that is loosely called “money” and is in fact only legitimately called “Legal Tender” or “Currency” and accepted “Fiat Currency” – would not be it. Real Money with a capital M is a denomination of a – measurable substance which cannot change so long as that legal commodity exists as property of some legal entity. IE: If you own Money that means you own its decreed measurement of material substance. For example: You do not own a “dollar” because what is a dollar? There is no such thing. You own perhaps one cubic meter of nickel. That nickel can be exchanged in the form of a paper notary signifying the ownership of a specific brick of a cubic meter of nickel, and that said notary is then called a “cubic meter of nickel note” notary syn: dollar, note, tender - but for said substance because money is its specie. It is not given any national description such as USD or Mark or Yen or Horny Elves Under Santa Claus. It is a measurable relevant substance that cannot become abstract by political debochery.
3 - Create a military force which enforces said above principals . . . Actions speak louder than words. Politicians talk peace but politics speaks weapons. Might may not make Right. But it sure is more convincing than reason. For those that argue this point - I admire your views on the power of Ghandian principals, but I’m sorry, I still don’t think it’s realistic.
Who defines “improvement”? It seems to me that politics would immediately get into the game and, in effect, be paid off to favor some elite group like the G20.
The US had that as a part of its Constitution and it was quickly undermined. In the US (still as law) it is illegal to uphold anything but gold or silver as financial currency. Of course the tried and true method for controlling a country is to manipulate its financial foundation (which is why they made it unconstitutional). But through deceit and trickery, it ends up happening anyway.
How do you prevent the military leaders from choosing when to support whom? Again, the US has exampled how the military executive branch can take over the country merely through trickery.
All arguments that I think would encourage refinement, but I don’t think that prove the concept useless. To answer your questions will be to further develop the idea . . . which takes a bit of time.
Normally I would talk about my philosophical society, but Nameta 9 has recently brought something to my attention, something I knew but had forgotten (labour obsolescence).
-
Form millions of democratic militias the world over.
-
Demand free or next to free food, clothing, shelter etc.
-
If they (corporate/banking elite) don’t give into our demands, ANNIHILATE THEM.
…or maybe we could just begin printing our own money.
In brief that will fail, it would be a develop into a tiranny since everything is controlled and regulated by the military. All tirannies are doomed to failure.
This will solve everyones problems? i do not see how.
Okay, but to me, the first concern is how to arrange that what you formulate can and will maintain itself against all potential adversaries.
Are you fucking kidding me
Well, I be fucking you (though I think you would have noticed)
Or I might be kidding you,
but I’m not likely to be doing both.
Why you ask?
Elaborate, WW3.
And, James, I’m glad you are aware that the American Constitution is being circumvented (ie: criminal law) and thus is a crime for all Americans to obey the criminal law, but anyhow, lest we not forget the past. How has it been typically circumvented? What are the leaks you need to plug?
Okay I am going to wikify my 3 directives. I am creating a sort of directory tree, described as follows.
Each problem (a) is paired with its appropriate solution (b) and each problem-solution pair (1) will be further subcategorized by its more minute problem-solution pair, (1.1) and hence repeated further (1.1.1). I would encourage anyone to correct what you feel needs to be corrected by offering an alternative of your own. For example: If you don’t like 1.1b, then propose 1.2b, or 1.3b . . . and so on. If you notice another problem that deals with the proposed solution (such as 1.1a) then add another problem (1.2a, or 1.3a . . . and so on)
So . . .
1a - Everyone is mandated to hold their own but nobody is responsible for the survival of the planet.
1b - Create an organization responsible for the survival of the planet.
2a - “money” is shit.
2b - Mandate that Money is not shit.
3a - Nobody listens to theory.
3b - Militarize #1 and #2.
1.1a - Politics will fuck it up and corrupt your special “order”
1.1b - Mandate a commission and basic guidelines like the UN. Different national leaders become chairmen, but the different chairmen still have to follow protocols.
1.2b - make this order a stock. Create formulae for payouts which relate to statistical data based on evidence for environmental growth. Investors can vote on decisions of the order. Investors make money from the stock directly related to the current data for a healthy biosphere. Think about it like this. In eastern traditions, doctors get paid for when you’re healthy not for when you’re sick. Same principal here applied to the planet. Investors get paid for what can be diagnosed as better health.
2.1a - Politics will fuck it up and corrupt your solid money.
2.1b - The constitution declared it illegal for banks to create money that was not backed with precious metals and now nobody listens to the law. So don’t just write it in law. Back it with teeth. That’s what #3 is for. It’s not just illegal to make a fake bank like the federal banks. The military commissioned to bomb said banks gets a commission on their confirmed destruction should they appear on domestic territory. The military says: “Please. We would love you to create a fake bank on our soil. We’re allowed to demand a tax surplus the minute we bomb you so we won’t even interfere with your business until it’s clean and officiated for our destruction.”
3.1a - Politics will fuck it up because who watches the watchers? Who polices the police? Who governs the government?
3.1b - You never know where it ends but at least you can minimize the risk. As far as I see it, there are 2 big sectors in politics and the rest are powerless bullshit in between. (1) banks, (2) military. So long as these two sectors are clearly separate, they cannot maintain full control. If you control the funding mechanisms to the military directly through the people, the military has to work hard to convince the people that they are doing their job. If you make the military regulate banking (by bombing fake banks) you now have a rather tight loop. One enforces the other. The military polices the bank. The bank polices the military.
Before you criticise — pleeaaaase pleeease first try hard to think of a good alternative so that we don’t just spend our days mowing down everyone and solving nothing.
Before I get to your proposals, let me explain a little history of my concerns and the US Constitution short comings.
In the 60’s, in my high school civics classes (the source for more than one prominent official), we openly discussed the new world order. It wasn’t an issue of conspiracy theory back then. We understood that the US was to become basically just a marketing group, Asia was to be the manufacturing groups, Europe, the intelligentsia and so on. America was to be one nation as Mexico and Canada were melded into the US. Europe was to be one nation as the European countries were undermined. Asia, as well.
But what we didn’t discuss was how the transformation was to take place (or I wasn’t paying that much attention). During the 70’s and 80’s I watched the formula for change and the clouds involved being induced (“Chaos theory”, “change is good”, “old people are naive and bad”, “technology is cool”, “Christians are evil”, “White men are evil”, “Capitalism is evil”, “Corporation are evil”, “Love is a sickness”, “Evil doesn’t exist”, “It Takes a Thief”, “Vigilantism is cool”, “spies are cool”, “there are no morals”, “it’s all about survival of the fittest”, and so on…). I watched the primary industries in America being dismantled and reconstructed through private law suits, leveraged take overs, terrorism, and “accidental deaths” and “murder-suicides”. Of course, being an altruist, I seriously didn’t care for the manner of this change formula and had to wonder to where it was really all heading.
The theories concerning governing didn’t really seem to be changing at all, merely updated arguments as to which of the prime 3 was better. This led me to believe that whatever new order they had in mind was apparently not going to be anything new, but merely bigger, world wide. Socialism was the most obvious candidate and strong evidence got confirmed that indeed world socialism (now called “Democratic Socialism” was to be the new world. But being an engineer and psychologist working with theories of intelligence, I could see a serious issue. Socialism has an inherent flaw pointed out by every theorist on the subject including Carl Marks (who seemed to have laid the foundation for the change over with Communism being the final step). The engineer and psychologist in me immediately sought for a better solution.
When I discovered that the better solution was very similar to the original US Constitution, I of course, I had to find out what went wrong with what they had. That wasn’t really a difficult task.
First Outstanding Weakness - Government Dependence
The US primarily lost its independence because of the need for a government to have dependency upon it. And in order to provide such dependence, terrorism must be used to ensure the belief in the need. That method is the fundamental problem with socialism. It requires a proposed outside threat at all times, else the government loses its funding. That one line tells the story of human world history. It was promoted during the late 70’s that “we all agree that government is of the highest priority”.
Second Outstanding Weakness - Economic Terrorism
JP Morgan (of Chase Bank) and his Nazi buddy (forgot his name) had proposed that if given control over any nations money, they had no concern over who supposedly ran the country, fore they would. Morgan had openly discussed how sensitive the American economy was and how the US really needed a Federal bank, even though unconstitutional. Just prior to the “great depression”, Morgan announced that the economy was going to collapse and quickly relocated his own funds. Such an announcement ignited the terroism that collapse the US economy the first time. And after a few more struggles, eventually the FED was illegally established as the source and controller of all US money.
Third Outstanding Weakness - Trickery, Hidden Agendas, and Conspiracy
They got the bill concerning the FED passed through Congress by depending on “gentleman’s agreements” to sucker the old school into weakness (they actually had honorable gentlemen back then). The takeover came by waiting until the opponents had just left Congress for the season, then very quickly took a vote of all present members. The Secretary of State later simply lied and wrote that the majority of States had approved the new FED when in fact only 2 states had even voted.
Fourth Outstanding Weakness - Media Control
Media control is much like currency control in that if you can obtain it, you can pretty much control any nation regardless of who was running it. And like currency control, it had been established as unconstitutional to form a united media, “freedom of speech”. But inherently, media mechanisms have weaknesses that allow for invasion and control without overt control. Hitler’s complaint of the Jews was that they were using their European media control to keep European nations at odds with each other (which the Jews had openly boasted they would do, “turn nation against nation”). So without really overtly breaking the law, the mere slowness or the chaotic-ness, obfuscation, of news media and entertainment sources allows for manipulation of what the majority of people finally believe. The Constitution was primarily being undermined by the people not really knowing what was happening until it was far to late and the stories were all too obfuscated to yield confidence. What is really happening always has a middleman controlling what really gets seen by the majority of people.
Fifth Outstanding Weakness - Control of Laws
Once Media is being controlled, all laws can easily be controlled through reputation and obfuscation. What was established as undeniable rights and law can be completely ignored as the police will enforce what they have been told to enforce, not knowing how illegal it really is nor believing they could do anything about it.
- Dependency Belief
- Economic Control (thus production control)
- Hidden Agendas
- Media Control
- Law Control
There are other distinguishable factors, but those are significant enough to display what kinds of problems you must face when trying to propose any governing method. As you can see, I hope, my proposed method (CRH) takes care of all of those and more. The first one is the most interesting one.