Static Constitutions are Fallacious

Day 24, Sixth Moon, 005

And they don’t work. The state we’re in right now only proves that.

We have been trained to think in terms of living by a written constitution. We have been trained to think in terms of abiding by written law.

This training to refer to the law for every move, has saddled us with a heavy burden which automatically stalks us like a surveillance camera that examines our every move.

In building the law, people got together and pieced ideas, restrictions and allowances together and all agreed that what was drafted, would become “the law” and people must “live within” the law. Should they veer from it, they will be charged or sued, put before a judge and jury to determine whether they had broken the law or not. They could be thrown into jail.

I hope to show that this method is ponderous, clunky, traumatic, as well as totally unnecessary for a just society. It may be difficult to think that a society could possibly get by without “law”, but that is but a perspective, and I will show that “law” is redundant and only places a hierarchy above every sovereign individual, thus removing our birthright of free will, while conferring power to total strangers.

For one thing, only certain people get to make the law. Even if laws are made fully open for anyone to partake in making them, there will always be people who come along who haven’t partaken. Should the law apply to those who didn’t have a hand in making them? What logic holds that law should prevail even by those who had no involvement in their making?

Natural human progress changes over time. Laws may be reasonable at one time but become unreasonable as progress occurs. For example, during the horse and buggy days, it was a law that a flag be waved on approaching an intersection, however with the advent of the automobile and traffic lights, that was no longer appropriate. People are still in jail for smoking marijuana but marijuana is legal now. Yet the law remains on the books. It wasn’t repealed or updated.

Because human life is forever changing and progressing, law needs to adapt with it. But it would take up all our time to be able to do this within the system that we currently have. Yet the fact is, that times do change, and if the laws cannot keep up, then everyone is skating on thin ice.

In this system, changing the law takes years and there is no provision in the law, for changes to be made promptly. It takes not only years but also financial expenditure and human effort. These factors are never accounted for. They simply are taken as part and parcel of carrying out the law. The ones who carry out the law however have an advantage in that their time is being paid for. They’re at least getting recompensed for it so they don’t mind taking up your day. They have no skin in the game other than that – they often don’t even know the people or anything about the case that they are imposing. They think because they are getting a paycheck, they will do anything that they are told. Yet for you and me, it could destroy everything we’ve built. And going by this principle could do the same to them but for some reason, that isn’t comprehended.

As a principle, time involvement must be recognized otherwise you yourself could be held up taking years of your life in pursuit of a solution. There is no justice when a victim has to spend years of their life to make a claim of injustice. There is no safety when people who may not be able to afford justice have to relinquish their pursuit of it.

The very idea that the law must be written down in a constitution or manifesto is a legacy from an era that no longer exists. The idea of writing constitutions that people must live by, came from a time before electricity, television, aviation, cars, telephones and digital technology to name a few. The age of digital technology allows change to happen rapidly. We are all familiar with the speed computers can churn out, with the changes that have occurred in technology, in our ability to be mobile, to communicate with people from all over the world in real time, and to not have to work in the fields for our food, yet changes in our social systems have stood still. Changes in how we reach consensus has not kept up. We are still going by constitutions and manifestos that were drafted centuries ago, when horses were used for transportation and most of the population was illiterate.

We expected the digital age to free us, to give us more leisure and freedom, but it has not done that because the underlying conveyance has not changed along with the times. If we want to streamline our social systems and alleviate us of its unwieldiness, so that we can enjoy the leisure the digital age promised, then we need to do it all very differently. We can do it very easily and suffuse each person with unparalleled sovereignty status and personal freedom.

Sovereignty is a status that suggests egalitarianism. I can only be a sovereign individual if I grant the same sovereignty status to others. To not do so retains the structure of hierarchy, of which this author believes must be transcended. We want our lives to get better not stay stuck in a system that no longer serves us and that causes extreme unfairness and distress.

The idea of writing laws down and having some people agree to them and then seal them to bind all to adhere to their code, is a preposterous idea. It only makes sense if you don’t think about it (credit to Jason Christoff for that poignant meme) This state of affairs weighs us down, saps the life out of us, destroys what we build, and takes years from our life. By accepting the law as just something we have to live with, we are not aware of its theft.

People go to court to seek justice and have their case heard and settled. Though no one takes on this pursuit with an outlook of cheer, they take it on willingly, dismissing the hours of effort and cost it would take them as well as the staff needed to carry out this normal societal function. They take this chore willingly because they think that the law is a good thing. But actually, it isn’t.

In this day and age consensus could be made simply, and practically without cost. It would render the grand buildings that house the courts and state employees to be emptied of occupants because there would be no need to have this massive workforce to do what we ourselves can do, aided by the digital technology that is at our disposal in our back pockets.

Laws are static but life is dynamic. Laws do not represent life because of this. Life is not two-dimensional as laws are, written on paper or screens. For constitutions, laws, manifesto’s, policies, etc, to be up with the times, they need to be able to change promptly, while also coherently.

We haven’t even begun to utilize the technology that all of us have access to today. We remain in the mindset of anti-sovereignty and anti-egalitarianism that representative government imposed upon everyone wholesale. It is the mindset of the pecking order, with some above, and some below. It reduces us to nothing more than chickens. We are unfamiliar with the idea of sovereignty. We are so used to seeking the accommodation of others and having to sacrifice our autonomy or our personal standpoint in order to fawn to someone “higher” than us, before fairness is granted. This leaves far too much to chance. It leaves far too much power in the hands of strangers with no skin in our game therefore no incentive to be on our side.

Through this inculcation of living through the belief of law, we inflict a transfer of organic accountability. The one with the money can remove their accountability and someone else is infringed upon, usually someone with less money. In this system of ours we don’t hold those responsible who do the harm, as they hold the power and the money and they have nothing to lose and they know it. If they build a Walmart in a location that doesn’t get enough customers, they will close it down and build another one five miles away. Without having to answer to anyone for their faulty decisions and their disturbance of the land and its inhabitants. We are at the mercy of strangers who make edicts that we had no say in making and where we have to cater to their mood on the day, lest it affect our life unfavorably, where all they have to do is sit behind a desk and yell “next”.

Why do we accept such a state of affairs? Possibly because we are unaware of the possibility that it could be any different. For eons we have believed that only through law can we exist without killing each other. However the reality shows otherwise, the reality shows that despite the reams of laws that have been made and are added to daily, corruption and crime occur as a matter of course and in many aspects only gets worse. We are actually less safe with laws.

What is a law but a restriction saying what is not allowed? To cover the full spectrum of what could happen, an enormous amount of paper and human effort is needed to draft them. In this digital age, it’s easy for political representatives to seek consensus from their constituents before they vote on a law in the House of Representatives, to find out what it is their constituents want them to move on. All they need do is send questionnaires to constituents. But they don’t do this. Probably because pretty soon, the people would discover that they could do this themselves. And that’s what I’m claiming we can do right now if we wanted to.

When a law passes there is no quantifiable number of constituents who are proven to agree or disagree. We never get to see the numbers, indeed the question is never even asked. This creates a breeding pit for corruption. They could be telling us anything. Power invested in another is folly. We have all seen its consequences many times. But how do we get out of it?

The wisdom of crowds yields the most accurate outcomes therefore we need more people to speak not just a few. We need more perspectives, not less. And we need to know exactly the number who voted for or against. What would be the best way for you to have your say? What would be the best way to quantify the consensus? The answer is simple – it’s by taking a poll, survey or referendum. We do that sometimes but far too seldom and the results have no meaning because the polls are not set up scientifically.

The word “law” always assumes that it is followed by force. “Obey the law or else”. This is a constant threat and a primitive way to handle justice. Rather than law we would be better off to live by principles and guidelines. Principles are overall conventions such as free speech, body autonomy, do unto others, etc., and guidelines advise the best ways but nothing can be stated absolutely. In all laws, principles, guidelines, there must be flexibility because no law applies 100%.

Who would decide these principles? Well I’m so glad you asked because the answer is beautiful and empowering.

Now that we have digital technology, we can quantify everything, well everything that we choose to.

We have the tools but we are not using them. The Egalitarian Proposal System enables us to use the tools we have to quantify people’s opinions, to find out how many actually do agree with a proposal or disagree. We don’t have to leave it to an obscure few who really don’t give a damn what people outside their clique think, this current system works just fine for them (because it favors them) But we need a system that favors everyone equally.

That word “equal” can be a bit of a twist, it has been abused to mean everyone must be the same or be doled out the same amounts. But we are all different, we need systems that support our differences. The only way equality works out the way it’s meant to is when we attribute it to having equal say. What does that mean? It means that anyone can chime in whenever they want. They don’t have to be limited to a time and they don’t have to be limited to anything. They themselves need to learn the ability to sense the tempo. This is how we learn. We cannot learn and evolve when we are being told what to do about everything or when we think we need to ask permission simply to speak. That only stifles us and keeps us uniform and we are each a different personality, each a unique multi-dimensional fountainhead.

The Egalitarian Proposal System is a data system that is based on a logical process. It gives results of actual numbers and not just a mishmash of patchy conclusions like the current system dispenses. Results can’t have meaning when the districting boundaries are arranged like a drunkard’s swill landing on the floor. Why are the districts set up in such a convoluted way? What logic is behind it? As a cynic I would say the logic is to make your vote count not a whit.

Not only do the convoluted districts make no sense in arriving at meaningful results, but voting for a person also makes no sense whatsoever. A person is filled with countless opinions, a person can change their mind in a moment. How often can a representative (with thousands of constituents) pass laws that you happen to agree with? What percentage of their legislation have you agreed with? I bet very little. So in what way is that representation?

There are too many pressures on a representative for them to even care about what you think.

Why not instead create an infrastructure that enables you and me and anyone else, to make the proposals? And for you and me and anyone else, to vote on the proposals that others make? Why don’t we do this? It’s easy, all it takes is some simple software, software that is like survey software.

A website would host the system. It would be like opening up a newspaper’s website. On it would appear the trending proposals of the day, the week, etc. The site would enable a user to browse proposals according to their search criteria – proposals in your locality or state, proposals in different countries, proposals from particular authors or proposals on particular issues or interests. For example, a search for proposals on hemp buildings in your state, or proposals on car manufacturing in the USA.

You discuss the issues surrounding the proposal during the discussion period of the proposal, enter your ideas and suggestions. The Proposer, the originator, would welcome all ideas because they want the final proposal to appeal to as broad a range of people as possible, because the aim is to gain at least an 80% approval rate for the proposal, or technically, the 80% approval of a quorum. Voting is meaningless if a quorum is not met.

The percentage that is determined for the quorum to be met, itself has to be voted on. Proposers can put their case for the percentage they advocate and the people will vote for their favored rate. The districts are defined by a circular pattern with the core being the most populated center. This circular pattern is replicated in all districts with a uniform number of constituents – apples to apples. Everything will be easily understandable.

Not only can you enter a discussion on proposals, you may want to enter a proposal yourself. You could propose whatever you felt was worth building, or worth changing or worth starting. After submitting a proposal, you would check it daily and enter into the discussions as the proposal gets more honed through people’s involvement.

The discussion period is set by the proposer. When the discussion period closes, the proposer revises the discussion points and makes a revised proposal. The proposer would tailor the final proposal in a way that would appeal to the greatest number of people, as a high rate is what passes the proposal into implementation. The discussion period is when the proposer can see how his proposal appeals to the audience. It may need to be tweaked and during the revision of the proposal is when that can be done. The proposal is best if kept to a simple statement requiring a yes or no response. This ensures that there is no confusion of interwoven issues making the voters shy away. The objective is to convince as many voters as possible to vote for your proposal because proposals that receive an 80% or more approval, go to the next phase, which is implementation.

Having a high rate of approval acts like the senate does in congress. It is a check and balance that ensures a proposal has widespread appeal. The website needs to be totally open, and if censorship is sought, it needs to be passed by proposal beforehand. Like everything else.

How would you like to be able to have your say in your life, in your destiny? How would you like to make government obsolete by having a system to replace it that meant unleashing of the human mind and spirit, all carried out in a harmonious and coherent system where nobody rules and anyone can participate with equal status? If that appeals to you, let’s keep talking. I’m looking for somewhere to practice this process and tweak it and perfect it. I’m hoping there will be groups who are adventurous and will be thrilled to try this out. How can it harm us? I’m hoping we’ll put our heads together and find a community that would be eager to try this out and experiment with it and making it as smooth as possible. I believe there is nothing more egalitarian or balanced as a society that enables all its members to have their say. I believe this will bring us out of our shell and out of our peril.

We’ll be able to highlight those who have done good things for us, and those who have done bad. Everyone will have the unlimited opportunity to speak, defend themselves or air grievances. It all can be made by proposal, a suggestion of what you want to see happen, and find others who want the same. It’s about finding like minds and building something that they all value. There is no need for everyone to be doing the same thing, it doesn’t have to be about control anymore. This consensus system would foster groups forming their own little enclaves for them to “do their own thing”. It would foster diversity, creativity, motivation and spark our next evolutionary phase. A sensible, coherent, expeditious, consensus system can be a reality and in a very short time. The world can be our oyster again.