Congratulations, this is a superb outline of the dynamics of society's mental and emotional slavery. The individual responsibilities that people must assume in order to "grow up" and take care of themselves will be overwhelming to many readers. The increasingly obvious and massive betrayal of human respect and liberty by our leaders is helping to push people in the right direction and to recognize their own innate sovereignty.
The main problem with the Egalitarian Proposal System is that it would perpetuate the illegitimate rule by majority. Just because more people support an unjust act than those who oppose it doesn't confer legitimacy. Liberty means individuals are free to choose and act according to their own free will as long as doing so doesn't disrespect or interfere with the rights of others to do the same.
Assuming that most people have enough knowledge and expertise to make decisions for others whom they know nothing about is absurd. Also, the censorship and control of information makes truly informed consent impossible without devoting a huge amount of time to research, time that most people simply don't have or want to invest.
"...what could be a better criteria to get things done than what most people want?"
Individual sovereignty and responsibility or responsible self-government. We don't need to vote at all for the approval of others. We need only govern ourselves in a way that respects the individual rights of everyone else to do the same.
Thanks for your comment. The EPS needs lots of discussion because it is looking at the world through a different lens and we have to actually place ourselves into a new paradigm to be able to see its attributes. It's difficult to explain unless there are questions and concerns such as the one you've given to bring out special circumstances that may seem untenable.
In the new paradigm, speech is always free. Therefore whatever happens to you that you don't like, you can publicize it and let others know. This in itself hinders any flourishing of psychopathy or illwill as it will be exposed. Exposure is the remedy. Not that it will be totally abolished, but it will be very much diminished to a large extent so that it doesn't pose a problem anymore. It will be "handle-able".
Also in the new paradigm, no force will ever be conducted. It will be seen as highly contemptible even to suggest force. So no one can force things on you that you don't want to do. But just say you have a neighbor who parks their car in the street and in front of your house constantly and you don't like it. You can make a proposal and put it to the neighborhood and if a vast majority agrees with you, it puts a pressure on that neighbor to move the car where the proposer suggested (because a good proposal also provides a suggestion for alternatives)
The neighbor doesn't HAVE to move his car but at least he knows that the neighbors are not for that, and it brings pressure to bear unless the neighbor gives good reasons for why he parks there. The proposal will give him a chance to voice that and it will be taken into consideration when people vote.
You may want a new road constructed that leads you to your place of employment and that many other "citizens" may want. You make a proposal and put it to the constituents. If they agree with you and an overwhelming majority votes for it, then the road is built.
I hope you can see that finding a quality consensus doesn't mean bossing anyone around. It simply means we get to know in all our doings, how others see the situation.
Unlike today when only a very, very, few decide what goes. And ordinary people are not sought for their opinions whenever something is slated to go into effect.
We are still always sovereign but when it comes to doing things of a public nature, then we have to consider others, yes? How do we get things done in your proposal where each sovereign goes it alone?
The EPS also gives an actual figure of those for or against. Which we need to know. Instead of just hearing from the loudest minority.
What happens when it's a big issue that will affect everyone like mandates, genetic modification of the food chain, weather manipulation, etc. If a majority approves of a proposal (for the public good) there will be direct, unavoidable consequences to everyone. Nothing then has changed and our sovereignty and liberties are again obliterated. Even decisions about whether or not to finance local projects through taxes, or allocate land and resources to development will affect the rights of the minority who disagree with the proposal.
It takes an entirely different mindset to protect individual rights from LEGITIMATE harm. Just opposing a project because you don't like it shouldn't be enough to stop it from proceeding, but showing how it could or will CAUSE serious personal harm should be. In that case the proposal must be rejected no matter what percentage of the public support it.
Proposals can stop weather manipulation. Most people would unequivocally vote for it don't you think? New programs that were to be touted would have to first get the vote of the people. Proposals have to have all the details and I think anything nefarious couldn't get through this buffer. They would have to answer questions by anyone who cared. And they wouldn't be able to cover up nefarious proposals so easily. Whereas today, they just put these programs into action and say nothing. Our sovereignty must have teeth - we need to be able to record our agreement with those we agree with and record our opposition to those we don't agree with. Remember - it will be in the paradigm of a totally open internet so everyone will know who did what and who agreed to what etc. The reason for this is openness is to make the conditions for sociopathy almost non-existent. This also gives us FULL sovereignty as we must see ourselves as part of a whole and this gives us the highest degree of agency within that whole. How else would you suggest we could could protect our sovereignty?
Full, honest disclosure of ALL the facts and implications prior to consenting or objecting would be a wonderful step in the right direction. How the public can verify and validate that complete disclosure is an area of concern. There could easily be 50 to 100 proposals, or more, that would affect an individual's rights at any one time. Obtaining sufficient information about each to make an informed decision would require time, skill and expertise that most people would not be willing or able to provide.
I don't know what the answer is. The more I think about the complexity of opinions involved in action-reaction relationships the more obscure the dividing lines between individual freedom and the responsibility to respect the rights of others become. Maybe there is no absolute truth... only subjective perspectives.
Take yourself out of this paradigm where you think everyone has to be engaged in a common economy, or anything else. There will be tons of different groups to choose from - nobody HAS to do what the consensus says, but we use consensus to as a guideline. We have to have information and that is all it is. Also a natural offshoot of that would be people would make pledges to do those things they agreed to, or to offer regular time to the project, so that projects can sustain themselves. The proposer has to have all that carved out though and those who do not fulfill their pledges can be seen by anyone which gives a history. People would develop a reputation and those with good reputations will be included in projects and those with bad reputations will be ostracized. Yes there will be proposals all over the place but the only ones you have to care about are the ones you engage with.
Hey it's funny you wrote this article at this time because on Maurice Braxton's YT channel {EvangelismforGOD} for the last 2 months on his channel I have been saying that absent an egalitarian system, "democracy" does not even exist in the first place. Maurice is a good man, but good grief I got so tired of hearing about Trump is bad for our democracy. I finally got fet up and said that Trump is BAD, but so is Harris. {he wanted Harris to win LOL} Now I did not explain what the egalitarian system was to Maurice - I was hoping he would ask what it was and my plan was {and still is} to send Maurice to you personally or indirectly and you can answer his questions. But so far he has not asked what egalitarianism is. I think the system could work pretty decently - which is why I mentioned it on the EvangelismforGOD YT channel. Well let's put it this way - it would be FAR better than the system we have now - MUCH MUCH better as long as the money used to fund the proposals was not tax money. I think it would be a great stepping stone to the phase when humanity reaches full onset swords into plowshares {and spears into pruning hooks} And we know "ages" overlap one another. When the Bronze age ended, there was not a special announcement made that on whatever date, the Bronze age would end . "Here ye Here ye, I King Tyrant do hereby decree that on such and such date, we will end the Bronze age and the Iron age will begin!!". "Oh hurray for IRON !!". That's NOT how history plays out {usually} - there's overlapping. I do see some possible inherent problems in the egalitarian system that perhaps I'm not understanding. For example, I really don't see a need to build more roads. We have enough of them and we/ve reached critical mass where we have so many roads, we can't keep them in good condition. So my 2 cents are as far as gigantic infrastructure, I say let's end building new, and let's restore what we do have now to a like new condition. That in of itself is a ton of work and will take many years. I'll stop for now because I need to crash in bed, but yea, egalitarian system much better than what we have now, but I would hope when we reach swords into plowshares, that we would not even be voting on stuff.
Great to hear your views. Definitely spread the idea around. I believe it is the only thing I've heard of at least, that gives us a path to sovereignty. As for the roads, that was merely an example. If we had this system and they were going to build a road, you could make a proposal against it and open up the dialogue and see what others feel and if there are enough, take it to the vote. If we worked with a system such as this, the result of your proposal would override the project to build the road.
Also we as humanity have got to step in and say "HEY !! enough Eminent Domain Already !!". We've {collectively} have run the course on screwing people over - it's like STOP IT !! This is 20 bleeping butt 24 and we have PLENTY of stinking roads. We can't even keep the ones we built in good shape. Of course I'm talking about public roads. If you have a farm for example, and want to build a road around and through your farm, I don't see a problem with that. But Eminent Domain I have a HUGE problem with. I can't change the past. In the past, people got messed over to make way for roads and train tracks and man made lakes. People justified it. OK, now I'm saying it's time to STOP. I'm NOT saying tear the road down, NO, keep the stinking road because the masses have adjusted their lives based on the Eminent Domain. But good grief let's not mess over any more people - let's be happy with what we have, and keep what we have in good repair, and make this work. But actually, IF the egalitarian system is to be part of the equation, then the question becomes WHEN ?? However, before we even get to that point, we need a "market" {or I grudgingly say an "electorate" separate from all the current believers in the current system. You can tell who those people are {the current believers in the system} - those are the one who currently "vote". So THOSE people are useless to the formation of the new paradigm. I totally maintain that the absolute FIRST step is a mass EXODUS from public education simply because "education" of children hits EVERYONE {OK most everyone at some point in their life} A mass exodus from public education is that first step to get the train rolling. Because once people realize they can break free of the public education system, then they start thinking what OTHER things can we break away from ?? Now you have an actual large group of people and enough to try new innovative ideas.
Your suggestion of Solutocracy is pretty much the same as I have illustrated in the EPS. It has a slightly different structure in that problems go to higher levels. But it needs to be explained. What is "a higher level"? It suggests there needs to be a grid in place to distinguish the levels. Yes, that's the same with the EPS. In the EPS one only need deal with items that they choose. If you choose to engage on proposals that only affect you, then jolly good, that's what you can do. I do not see where the problem arises that you mention.
In your system it doesn't explain details like what if something needs doing. After all, we are progressing and new things will have to come into being. How does one go about that in Solutocracy? The details are missing so it leaves room for confusion.
In the EPS the vast majority (not just a majority - this is important) decides what is to be done, it doesn't decide what you can do. I hope you see the difference. And anyone who wishes to be engaged in the project are free to do so, the Proposer decides all that. Each of us is a potential proposer and voter. That means each of us is endowed with the same powers.
You have a site to report problems on locally. The site is set up in "layers" with the top one being global. The specifics of what levels in between local and global I imagine can be ironed out amongst Those who care...
Maybe local, regional, continental, global...
People have a civic duty to check daily to see what problems are newly arrived on each level. They reach out to help if They can, vote it up if They can't if They think it's a problem, ignore it if They don't care, and maybe have a down-vote if They think it's a waste of time, though I am thinking that may not be necessary.
Leaders of the moment will emerge to solve for the problems as they arise.
There is an emergency section where emergencies can be reported, and all who sign up to help in emergencies will be alerted. Again, leaders will emerge.
Some good ideas but not enough information to go by. What will make leaders to merge for example? Yes leaders will pop up if we were left to our own devices so does that mean everyone goes by the leader? What is it that confers the person who decides what needs to be done?
I like that there is a site to report to. And the upvote if they like a proposal. Another thing that will have to be present is each person's history, so we can easily tell who to follow or trust. People can't hide behind "privacy". Perhaps there can be exceptions but that's why all this takes talking so we can brainstorm. We're at the ideas phase currently.
It's not the People that drive the movement on the structure; it is the solution to the problem. Who cares if One is overall scum if the solution is perfect?
Not "merge." Emerge. Put a group of People together with a common goal, and one will, eventually, become a leader. Best ideas, usually. That leader has emerged from the group.
No it does not mean everyOne will follow, but the probability is high that Most will. And unless there are personal gain issues, there will be little resistance. Thus this will work best without the need for money to live richly. Moneyed interests muck things up.
Without money, the best solution will be embraced by virtually All.
For more detail on the Egalitarian Proposal System please see my substack here: https://deniseward.substack.com/p/the-egalitarian-proposal-system
Congratulations, this is a superb outline of the dynamics of society's mental and emotional slavery. The individual responsibilities that people must assume in order to "grow up" and take care of themselves will be overwhelming to many readers. The increasingly obvious and massive betrayal of human respect and liberty by our leaders is helping to push people in the right direction and to recognize their own innate sovereignty.
The main problem with the Egalitarian Proposal System is that it would perpetuate the illegitimate rule by majority. Just because more people support an unjust act than those who oppose it doesn't confer legitimacy. Liberty means individuals are free to choose and act according to their own free will as long as doing so doesn't disrespect or interfere with the rights of others to do the same.
Assuming that most people have enough knowledge and expertise to make decisions for others whom they know nothing about is absurd. Also, the censorship and control of information makes truly informed consent impossible without devoting a huge amount of time to research, time that most people simply don't have or want to invest.
"...what could be a better criteria to get things done than what most people want?"
Individual sovereignty and responsibility or responsible self-government. We don't need to vote at all for the approval of others. We need only govern ourselves in a way that respects the individual rights of everyone else to do the same.
Thanks for your comment. The EPS needs lots of discussion because it is looking at the world through a different lens and we have to actually place ourselves into a new paradigm to be able to see its attributes. It's difficult to explain unless there are questions and concerns such as the one you've given to bring out special circumstances that may seem untenable.
In the new paradigm, speech is always free. Therefore whatever happens to you that you don't like, you can publicize it and let others know. This in itself hinders any flourishing of psychopathy or illwill as it will be exposed. Exposure is the remedy. Not that it will be totally abolished, but it will be very much diminished to a large extent so that it doesn't pose a problem anymore. It will be "handle-able".
Also in the new paradigm, no force will ever be conducted. It will be seen as highly contemptible even to suggest force. So no one can force things on you that you don't want to do. But just say you have a neighbor who parks their car in the street and in front of your house constantly and you don't like it. You can make a proposal and put it to the neighborhood and if a vast majority agrees with you, it puts a pressure on that neighbor to move the car where the proposer suggested (because a good proposal also provides a suggestion for alternatives)
The neighbor doesn't HAVE to move his car but at least he knows that the neighbors are not for that, and it brings pressure to bear unless the neighbor gives good reasons for why he parks there. The proposal will give him a chance to voice that and it will be taken into consideration when people vote.
You may want a new road constructed that leads you to your place of employment and that many other "citizens" may want. You make a proposal and put it to the constituents. If they agree with you and an overwhelming majority votes for it, then the road is built.
I hope you can see that finding a quality consensus doesn't mean bossing anyone around. It simply means we get to know in all our doings, how others see the situation.
Unlike today when only a very, very, few decide what goes. And ordinary people are not sought for their opinions whenever something is slated to go into effect.
We are still always sovereign but when it comes to doing things of a public nature, then we have to consider others, yes? How do we get things done in your proposal where each sovereign goes it alone?
The EPS also gives an actual figure of those for or against. Which we need to know. Instead of just hearing from the loudest minority.
What happens when it's a big issue that will affect everyone like mandates, genetic modification of the food chain, weather manipulation, etc. If a majority approves of a proposal (for the public good) there will be direct, unavoidable consequences to everyone. Nothing then has changed and our sovereignty and liberties are again obliterated. Even decisions about whether or not to finance local projects through taxes, or allocate land and resources to development will affect the rights of the minority who disagree with the proposal.
It takes an entirely different mindset to protect individual rights from LEGITIMATE harm. Just opposing a project because you don't like it shouldn't be enough to stop it from proceeding, but showing how it could or will CAUSE serious personal harm should be. In that case the proposal must be rejected no matter what percentage of the public support it.
Proposals can stop weather manipulation. Most people would unequivocally vote for it don't you think? New programs that were to be touted would have to first get the vote of the people. Proposals have to have all the details and I think anything nefarious couldn't get through this buffer. They would have to answer questions by anyone who cared. And they wouldn't be able to cover up nefarious proposals so easily. Whereas today, they just put these programs into action and say nothing. Our sovereignty must have teeth - we need to be able to record our agreement with those we agree with and record our opposition to those we don't agree with. Remember - it will be in the paradigm of a totally open internet so everyone will know who did what and who agreed to what etc. The reason for this is openness is to make the conditions for sociopathy almost non-existent. This also gives us FULL sovereignty as we must see ourselves as part of a whole and this gives us the highest degree of agency within that whole. How else would you suggest we could could protect our sovereignty?
Full, honest disclosure of ALL the facts and implications prior to consenting or objecting would be a wonderful step in the right direction. How the public can verify and validate that complete disclosure is an area of concern. There could easily be 50 to 100 proposals, or more, that would affect an individual's rights at any one time. Obtaining sufficient information about each to make an informed decision would require time, skill and expertise that most people would not be willing or able to provide.
I don't know what the answer is. The more I think about the complexity of opinions involved in action-reaction relationships the more obscure the dividing lines between individual freedom and the responsibility to respect the rights of others become. Maybe there is no absolute truth... only subjective perspectives.
Take yourself out of this paradigm where you think everyone has to be engaged in a common economy, or anything else. There will be tons of different groups to choose from - nobody HAS to do what the consensus says, but we use consensus to as a guideline. We have to have information and that is all it is. Also a natural offshoot of that would be people would make pledges to do those things they agreed to, or to offer regular time to the project, so that projects can sustain themselves. The proposer has to have all that carved out though and those who do not fulfill their pledges can be seen by anyone which gives a history. People would develop a reputation and those with good reputations will be included in projects and those with bad reputations will be ostracized. Yes there will be proposals all over the place but the only ones you have to care about are the ones you engage with.
Hey it's funny you wrote this article at this time because on Maurice Braxton's YT channel {EvangelismforGOD} for the last 2 months on his channel I have been saying that absent an egalitarian system, "democracy" does not even exist in the first place. Maurice is a good man, but good grief I got so tired of hearing about Trump is bad for our democracy. I finally got fet up and said that Trump is BAD, but so is Harris. {he wanted Harris to win LOL} Now I did not explain what the egalitarian system was to Maurice - I was hoping he would ask what it was and my plan was {and still is} to send Maurice to you personally or indirectly and you can answer his questions. But so far he has not asked what egalitarianism is. I think the system could work pretty decently - which is why I mentioned it on the EvangelismforGOD YT channel. Well let's put it this way - it would be FAR better than the system we have now - MUCH MUCH better as long as the money used to fund the proposals was not tax money. I think it would be a great stepping stone to the phase when humanity reaches full onset swords into plowshares {and spears into pruning hooks} And we know "ages" overlap one another. When the Bronze age ended, there was not a special announcement made that on whatever date, the Bronze age would end . "Here ye Here ye, I King Tyrant do hereby decree that on such and such date, we will end the Bronze age and the Iron age will begin!!". "Oh hurray for IRON !!". That's NOT how history plays out {usually} - there's overlapping. I do see some possible inherent problems in the egalitarian system that perhaps I'm not understanding. For example, I really don't see a need to build more roads. We have enough of them and we/ve reached critical mass where we have so many roads, we can't keep them in good condition. So my 2 cents are as far as gigantic infrastructure, I say let's end building new, and let's restore what we do have now to a like new condition. That in of itself is a ton of work and will take many years. I'll stop for now because I need to crash in bed, but yea, egalitarian system much better than what we have now, but I would hope when we reach swords into plowshares, that we would not even be voting on stuff.
Great to hear your views. Definitely spread the idea around. I believe it is the only thing I've heard of at least, that gives us a path to sovereignty. As for the roads, that was merely an example. If we had this system and they were going to build a road, you could make a proposal against it and open up the dialogue and see what others feel and if there are enough, take it to the vote. If we worked with a system such as this, the result of your proposal would override the project to build the road.
Also we as humanity have got to step in and say "HEY !! enough Eminent Domain Already !!". We've {collectively} have run the course on screwing people over - it's like STOP IT !! This is 20 bleeping butt 24 and we have PLENTY of stinking roads. We can't even keep the ones we built in good shape. Of course I'm talking about public roads. If you have a farm for example, and want to build a road around and through your farm, I don't see a problem with that. But Eminent Domain I have a HUGE problem with. I can't change the past. In the past, people got messed over to make way for roads and train tracks and man made lakes. People justified it. OK, now I'm saying it's time to STOP. I'm NOT saying tear the road down, NO, keep the stinking road because the masses have adjusted their lives based on the Eminent Domain. But good grief let's not mess over any more people - let's be happy with what we have, and keep what we have in good repair, and make this work. But actually, IF the egalitarian system is to be part of the equation, then the question becomes WHEN ?? However, before we even get to that point, we need a "market" {or I grudgingly say an "electorate" separate from all the current believers in the current system. You can tell who those people are {the current believers in the system} - those are the one who currently "vote". So THOSE people are useless to the formation of the new paradigm. I totally maintain that the absolute FIRST step is a mass EXODUS from public education simply because "education" of children hits EVERYONE {OK most everyone at some point in their life} A mass exodus from public education is that first step to get the train rolling. Because once people realize they can break free of the public education system, then they start thinking what OTHER things can we break away from ?? Now you have an actual large group of people and enough to try new innovative ideas.
No. I just want to have a say in the solution to problems that affect Me. I don't want a system that lets the majority decide for the minority.
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
Your suggestion of Solutocracy is pretty much the same as I have illustrated in the EPS. It has a slightly different structure in that problems go to higher levels. But it needs to be explained. What is "a higher level"? It suggests there needs to be a grid in place to distinguish the levels. Yes, that's the same with the EPS. In the EPS one only need deal with items that they choose. If you choose to engage on proposals that only affect you, then jolly good, that's what you can do. I do not see where the problem arises that you mention.
In your system it doesn't explain details like what if something needs doing. After all, we are progressing and new things will have to come into being. How does one go about that in Solutocracy? The details are missing so it leaves room for confusion.
In the EPS the vast majority (not just a majority - this is important) decides what is to be done, it doesn't decide what you can do. I hope you see the difference. And anyone who wishes to be engaged in the project are free to do so, the Proposer decides all that. Each of us is a potential proposer and voter. That means each of us is endowed with the same powers.
You have a site to report problems on locally. The site is set up in "layers" with the top one being global. The specifics of what levels in between local and global I imagine can be ironed out amongst Those who care...
Maybe local, regional, continental, global...
People have a civic duty to check daily to see what problems are newly arrived on each level. They reach out to help if They can, vote it up if They can't if They think it's a problem, ignore it if They don't care, and maybe have a down-vote if They think it's a waste of time, though I am thinking that may not be necessary.
Leaders of the moment will emerge to solve for the problems as they arise.
There is an emergency section where emergencies can be reported, and all who sign up to help in emergencies will be alerted. Again, leaders will emerge.
Some good ideas but not enough information to go by. What will make leaders to merge for example? Yes leaders will pop up if we were left to our own devices so does that mean everyone goes by the leader? What is it that confers the person who decides what needs to be done?
I like that there is a site to report to. And the upvote if they like a proposal. Another thing that will have to be present is each person's history, so we can easily tell who to follow or trust. People can't hide behind "privacy". Perhaps there can be exceptions but that's why all this takes talking so we can brainstorm. We're at the ideas phase currently.
It's not the People that drive the movement on the structure; it is the solution to the problem. Who cares if One is overall scum if the solution is perfect?
Not "merge." Emerge. Put a group of People together with a common goal, and one will, eventually, become a leader. Best ideas, usually. That leader has emerged from the group.
No it does not mean everyOne will follow, but the probability is high that Most will. And unless there are personal gain issues, there will be little resistance. Thus this will work best without the need for money to live richly. Moneyed interests muck things up.
Without money, the best solution will be embraced by virtually All.