The argument is simple:  there are two entirely rational pressures to
transition the planet, two religious prophesies heralding such, and
two secular-mystical prophesies for it.  That pretty much covers
EVERYBODY.  There come a time in humanities evolution where
individualism (which grew civilization to this point) must give rise
to collaboration and inter-dependence.

The Internet was SUPPOSED to be the revolutionary solution for such,
but all the Jabbascripters co-opted it into the same problems as
CAPITALISM:  glam and commerce.

The question really is:  does anyone deserve it? and there I have to
side with the anarchists the major part:  no.  So then the question
is, can we use the religious ideas of REDEMPTION and RETRIBUTION to
exact change and redeem the dirty money that capitalism has wrought.
I argue:  yes.  I have found the answers to the questions that
Christians can't resolve, that the Jews don't know, and that the
Muslims were wrong about.

So, indeed, there might be the strategies to be had.  But who's
willing to step up to it?

Raises hand,
\0x



On 9/22/16, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> In the mind of the middle of the bell curve, the state has legitimacy in
> the exercise of its authority, to a fair degree.
>
> This perceived legitimacy arises from the group:
>  - the perceived consent of the group/ majority
>  - the input/vote by the "governed" or "controlled"
>
>
> The state loses legitimacy due to
>  - exercise of power beyond moral foundation
>  - abuse of power by officers of the authority
>  - duopoly: two parties both funded by the same oligarchs
>
>
> The legitimacy of any social order/ system arises from the shared,
> implied / tacit and or explicit, consent of the "governed".
>
>
> Consent can be:
>  - implicit/ tacit
>    - the people don't protest / object
>    - the people vote at elections, and the rest is taken as a "mandate"
>      for the winning party
>
>  - explicit vote on every issue
>    - like Switzerland
>    - direct democracy style
>
>
> Possible foundations / principles / thought hooks:
>  - delegated power and authority, by people, to an external authority
>  - duration of delegation of any authority (duration of a parliament
>    until the next election, vs duration as voted on by the people)
>  - every activity is lawful except that a supermajority votes against it
>  - every activity on the commons is unlawful except that a law voted by
>    a supermajority allows it
>
>
> - When must a majority be merely a majority (50%+),
> - when must it be a supermajority (50%+ across all sub groups,
>   or e.g. 60% or 75% across all voters)?
>
>
> Divisions of power and authority:
>  - individual
>  - family, small group
>  - large group, corporation, state
>  - geographic vs intention/ agreement to group
>  - home level, street level, suburb, city, state, nation
>
>
> No authority except by consent of he who shall be imposed upon.
>
>
> Any change will require a concensus - speak your hierarchy of principles
> in a way Joe Sixpack can hear you.
>
> Choose a grand goal, but carefully consider the steps between now,
> and the end goal, and how to obtain agreement or mutual consent in
> conversation with Joe to a ladder of principles which ultimately
> achieves desired end goal.
>

Reply via email to