An open forum for general discussions of a spiritual nature where guests and readers entertain the teachings of The Urantia Book.
Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:52 pm +0000
fanofVan wrote:It would be important to acknowledge the difference in democracies and representative republics in form and function. We don't live in a national or state democracy. That is an important fiction to understand.
I really like the collective proxy and coalition grass roots strategy. Lots of potential.
Yes you are right. It is hard to accept the word "democracy" when the elected representatives are so easily bought and sold. The US has a somewhat mature system compared to some others, yet the country is practically divided right down the middle, and the same is true here in Brazil.
Perhaps I am, as SEla said, a little subversive in my presentation. Forgive me if I am wrong, but progress is
subversive when seen through the eyes of the status quo. IF this paradigm shift is indeed upon us, and if it is indeed an evolutionary change rather than a mere political movement, the established system will oppose it to the very end, even if it is an inevitable transformation of the way people are governed.
But on the other hand, we are not of this world even if we are in this world. In spite of its apparent evils, globalization in the long run is one of the characteristic of a world settled in light and life. As I have mentioned elsewhere I am cautious regarding technology.
Paper 72 is encouraging, especially because of the fact that it was a change of one heart that set a great change in motion that resulted in great progress for a similar society and yet at the time of the writing they were surrounded by enemies.
Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:34 am +0000
Regarding your caution toward technology...I think technologies come in many forms and each form is a tool of potential which cannot be determined to be either good or not good itself. Is the stone and stick or hammer and blade or coin and commerce or pulley and engine or microscope and telescope or dc and ac good or not good?
The answer of course is BOTH...or neither!! It is not the tool but its applications by people that determines that. Immature and unwise hands seeking personal gain in self importance will apply all technologies with evil intent and error filled results. The wise and loving will always, or mostly, apply technogies in ways of service to the greater good.
Isn't democracy a form of tool and technology? And a republic a utilitarian and functional adaptation of the technology of democracy - a tool to determine group will peacefully and collectively?
Digital technologies likewise create new potentials. Those will eventually be positive outcomes based on experiential wisdom....but certainly not until we are motivated by and governed with experiential wisdom. Until then the "conspiracy of power" will work to take advantage of every tool and technology for its own evil and negarious agendas.
Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:28 am +0000
I know that it is difficult to offer new modalities, which in your view, more efficient with greater verity, things like this.
Let me interpret what the link is saying. "We do not need to crowdsource; the ability to source from corporation and government charters is superior to this." "We are able to provide superior verity FOR governments (than government), in the totalling of statistical array information." "We can provide charters and statistical verity, on an equal parity or weighted shares, to both new corporations and existing democratic organisations.
What you have presented, let us assume for the moment that the main idea, the ability to create elections and report on them, can be processed algorithmically, logically, before and without the need for human interference. Such data is assumed to be more trustworthy, however must be robust enough for individuals to witness how their individual contribution fits into the total.
The issue that I have is that this is another group, an outside organisation, who is regulating and controlling this information. The olden adage applies "No Taxation without Representation", and in this case I imply participatory democracy requires some measurable voluntary contribution, people cannot simply be users, or some asset within a corporation's registry.
The system you introduce is not part of an organic democracy (an government which has been developed over time), but tries to sway new formations of organisationship with its currency of information. To say that governments hadn't access to a repository of progress before this, is to be blinded by the swift promises of a new era. It is much like Wikipedia, in this respect, but then the organisation you present details clear agenda in the way information has been presented on its site.
It is unclear, whether the organisation itself would attempt to usurp world government, or assist other group to do so, through its control of information. Civil governance must progress in its ability to maintain and provide verity in its reporting. However, you are correct to suggest that if an efficient elections overseership could arise from the highest federal level of the United Nations, then it would be simpler & cheaper for all federal elections to be conducted.
Despite the follies of information, it is incumbent on the public to say, we establish strong institution on our highest federal level National Level, to regulate the insider schemes of corporation, and to review our contracts for service & infrastructure from corporations periodically, in order to cancel invalid ones before payments are disbursed.