Architects of a New Dawn

We’d like to show the side of the world you don’t normally see on television.

Global Government: Organic Union of Souls Tricks The New World Order

Imagine if you will a framework, no, an architecture for a whole new agreement on how to have a functioning world government. Not one being sold to us by old European bankers with delusions of global empires, no. This new architecture would support some fundamental principles.
What might it look like ?
What are the key principles ?

I have some ideas...? What are yours....? Can you be specific and concise...?

Views: 127

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But by creating alternative networks, alliances and fellowships that operate outside of the main system, a small number of individuals can have a significant influence. Unfortunately many of the groups that have been successful in that way are rather nasty [all these old men with white hair that trick young kids into suicidal, bloody conflict in the name of one god or another or one nation or another], and few of the good ones that seriously work for the betterment of all, have gained enough momentum to make their mark yet.
One of the reasons that a system that evolves in a complex world becomes non-spiritual, is that there is no area in which people believe themselves to be more different than in spiritual questions. To my way of thinking, people are just as similar in the spiritual sphere as in the biological sphere. But try and tell a born again southern Baptist that his religion is basically the same as a Taliban warrior's in Afghanistan [or vice versa]. They believe their beliefs are opposed. If they are to do commerce on the same system it can't be a spiritually explicit system

Marc said:
I want to see if this forum can develop a concept that would be inviting enough, appealing enough, that it would rise up and usurp or supplant the systems being put into place by the Council on Foreign Relations and other old paradigm institutions trying to control the emergence of global government and global economics. There are economic forces and Think Tanks and extra-national corporations trying to cement and consolidate their influence so that they are in a position to maintain top down control over the emerging global structures.
As is often the case these entities use a kind of social calculus that leaves out important spiritual and social concerns and tends to be driven by desire to maintain control of profit and resources. This calculus is therefore less humane and incomplete. I am looking for structures or architecture with "value" that is not measured in the traditional profit / loss way these institutions tend to measure. One that is based on progressive sustainable ideals that benefit the many over the few. Systems where value is shared across the culture and institutions are geared toward enabling the broadest possible consensus through new forms of democratic participation.

I have some very specific ideas myself and I intend to share them, but the point of this thread is to invite our collective genius or divine mind to offer ideas which we can discuss and refine. Perhaps out of this, a revolutionary concept can be born, empowering the spirit behind this site and the emerging consciousness of a sustainable global community.
Steve I can see your point about what separates us and the kind of difficulties exist in achieving consensus and agreement.
What I am driving for here in this context is more about imagining possibilities and leaving behind the pragmatic questions of implementation. It's not that those pragmatic tests aren't important or relevant, they are. But for now, I want to cast off the limitations imposed by comparative analysis for a second and deal with inspiration. For instance maybe one of us could offer up an idea for global government that says "everyone has to serve in the global congress once in their lifetimes". this idea may be impractical but what sits behind it is of value. The idea that in the best world we all have something to contribute if even only for a brief period. This example isn't meant to be literal, I am offering it as a way to describe how we might contemplate new ideals. Lets agree to offer them, without limiting them at first.

Maybe we can conceive of something that has merit, but may not be possible to achieve based on real limitations right now. If we allow ourselves to let the idea present itself, let it come into being fully formed, then later, we can go back and decide how to modify it to fit various limitations.

another example;
In my world government, everyone in the world can meet with their local representative to the UN congress.

There are lots and lots of practical impediments to this idea, but I want to open myself and the discussion up to the benefits that might come into play, if it were to be possible. In this example it is the idea of participation on a mass scale that is at the center of suggesting it. I think most people would agree it would be a good way to go, if we could make it work. so I am looking for the basic framework of good ideas. Let the ideas come up and be spoken, then we can sit with them. If they truley are impractical we'll get to that point, but if we toss away an idea as impractical, before we even allow it to come into contemplation, we are choking the fire of innovation.

So this thread is asking us to imagine what would be a good way govern beyond the greed and dominance of current paradigms, but leave off for the time being whether it is possible or not. Just let the idea flow into our consciousness. Let it rest there for a time. Add other ideas then perhaps a picture can emerge. Yes it may be impractical, but it may also be imaginative and bring us to new possibilities that otherwise get silenced in the din of pre-judgement.

Marc
well, then try this one out: In my world government

The value in any event, transaction, or interaction is measured by its impact on every living being on the planet.

The calculus to find that value wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible. The price of combusting carbon compounds would then be many times more than the price on using clean energy, the value of making peace would be higher than the value of going to war, etc. etc.

Marc said:
So this thread is asking us to imagine what would be a good way govern beyond the greed and dominance of current paradigms, but leave off for the time being whether it is possible or not. Just let the idea flow into our consciousness. Let it rest there for a time. Add other ideas then perhaps a picture can emerge. Yes it may be impractical, but it may also be imaginative and bring us to new possibilities that otherwise get silenced in the din of pre-judgement. Marc
From that basic law, a number of laws could be generated to deal with e.g. energy consumption and waste.

  • all energy production will be taxed according to impact
  • all revenues from taxing high impact energy will be used to support the lowest impact energy
or:
  • all waste will be taxed according to impact
  • all revenues from taxing high impact waste will be used to support the reduction and/or re-use of waste
Inspiration may have a positive side or a negative one. One of humanity's deepest dilemmas today is that the more there are of our species the less there is to share for all the other species on the planet. Somehow or other the world government needs a way to limit our species' growth by other means than disease, starvation or war. Since making babies involves people doing what they love best, and since having babies is one of the most rewarding processes in life, there seems to be no "nice" way to limit population growth.
If, for a period of 100 years, no woman on earth had more than one baby during her life, the human population would return to the "normal" level that humanity had for millions of years ... Can we envision a law that states that only women and men who choose never to bear or father children are entitled to a seat on the world council?

Marc said:
But for now, I want to cast off the limitations imposed by comparative analysis for a second and deal with inspiration.
.... to imagine what would be a good way govern beyond the greed and dominance of current paradigms, but leave off for the time being whether it is possible or not. Just let the idea flow into our consciousness. Let it rest there for a time. Add other ideas then perhaps a picture can emerge. Yes it may be impractical, but it may also be imaginative and bring us to new possibilities that otherwise get silenced in the din of pre-judgement. Marc
So, basically what we are saying is that we will be punishing people, in the law, bend the law to a Global repositioning of power. Let the Environmentalists have a chance at power? Sounds to me like the exact thing I was saying before. Who has the right to tell anyone else how they should or should not live their lives? Personally, I think that we should form communitiesof people, or I think we should stone individuals who rape and murder others. Does this mean that I am going to go and Pick up a rock and start searching out said individuals and beat them like a caveman? No, because I know that their karma will catch up with them. It's really an issue with me when anyone thinks that they can change the way people think by going and changing the "laws" of a particular society. I am science driven, a Deist/Buddhist/Satanist, does this mean that I want everyone to believe as I do? No. If you want to start a new religion and go that route, good, I'll read your religion and pick up what I need from it and go on. Making a society based off of "spiritual ideals" is not right. You want to do that go to any church and see what the majority of churches do to each other. Listen to them speak of other philosphies, and if you agree with that and they are what you want, join them. But don't try and tell others how to exist simply because you don't agree with what they do with their lives. This is the same as meeting a non meateater extremist who wears Doc Martins and tells me that I shouldn't eat meat. Sorry so blunt, but the line must be drawn somewhere. If you wish for people, real people to join your cause then you must start off with leading by example. Don't go trying to make rules, just lead the way. Do what you do, and if someone feels the need to follow you, it won'd be because you made up some laws, it will be because you showed them through your actions a new path. If you show me that you're a good honest hard worker, and you have an idea that is based upon evolving as a humanist, then I will walk beside you, not behind you. That's just me.
OK...
As I read the exchange here I am not really hearing anything architectural. I recognize the points being made the debate about law and human interaction with religion.

To James' point, " So, basically what we are saying is that we will be punishing people, in the law, bend the law to a Global repositioning of power."

I would answer no, the punishment / rule enforcement principle is not really the focus. Implementation of a rule set, which is then forced upon others and the implementation of a control matrix is not the focus.

My focus in this thread is to imagine a structural framework, which could be made flexible enough, and just ( as in Justice) enough to build interest, to build momentum for people to get behind. A solution to the complex web of issues facing a global government, that would inspire and give people something to rally behind, to look forward to. something that breaks the mold of the past systems, and offers structural support and a framework for hope and participation.


Think of it this way...
In the USA we have 2 Senators for every state in congress. This means a sampling ratio between the people and their representatives of XXX million:1. What we want to do is make the ratio of representation as close to 1:1 as possible using communications technology. Participatory representative democracy, with no lobbyists, special interests, or corruption influencing the votes. Expand the halls of power until everyone is in the building.

Use technology to create a structure whereby vast numbers of people debate among themselves in small groups and then vote on who will represent them at the next level of the debate. As the process unfolds, everyone is is involved and their opinions heard. As councils debate and vote a decision begins to percolate up through the social body. Eventually, there will be a point with each issue where a critical mass of votes is achieved and a decision is rendered mathematically.

Millions will have discussed, and voted on the question giving us all a stake in the debate and the decision.

Here are the basics;

A global system,
Democratic in some form as to allow the widest sampling of votes possible

Vertical construction, so that small local issues can be decided locally by local people, but flexible enough to absorb input locally on global issues and compile this input into a massive global consensus in which every region has been consulted.

Imagine a vast web of connected cells. The cells are linked together and decisions are debated in each cell and voted on. Then, a member from that cell is chosen to represent this local vote / decision in another cell. This next cell is populated from people who have been chosen form previous cells, so that at each new level, the debate and discussion occurs again and again. These cells are heirarchical so the debate rises through structure of discussion / debate and voting.

With each individual vote from cell to cell being tallied as things progress.

In small more regional decisions the voting / debating stops when a certain geographic consensus is reached. However the system is flexible enough that when the issue being raised has wider implications the process can flow along until a larger regional sample, or even a global consensus has been achieved.

Communications resources are re-purposed to support the communication and "meeting" required for each cell to operate linking people together beyond geographic regions as the process unfolds. Internets, TV networks, global connectivity provides the conduit whereby the largest possible sample of human input can be achieved.

This then is framework, an architecture which could be constructed to bring about more inclusive and less corrupt democratic sampling for the purposes of governance.

I will admit there are many issues which this raises, but I believe we are at the point where it is time to start bringing ideas like this out into the open, and refining them to the point where they are useful to the larger common good.

We need something for people to head towards, a way out form under the old oppressive decision making process which is ruled by coercion, politics and corruption.

How you would enhance or modify this structure I am proposing?

If you see a problem, what could be done to provide a solution to the problem?

you are free to say "It will never work" that is easy, but I am challenging you, as if all our lives depended on it, to instead offer up how you would overcome whatever the difficulty or challenge that you see, how would you form an architecture that would solve the issue you raise?

This then is an invitation to imagine the possibilities, the drawbacks, and solutions.

I think we have what it takes..do you..?
So why then did you not just post your ideas, and get a debate going that way? You basically wanted to get everyone else's ideas, and wanted to know what they would respond to, but not give them any foresight as on the post before. Sorry, it sounds almost like the situation we have now. Bureaucracy is just that...
I started this to see what might be offered, and I said at the beginning, I would add my thoughts.

I am not sniping you guys, I honestly just think there are other people who might have even better ideas than mine.



James Murff said:
So why then did you not just post your ideas, and get a debate going that way? You basically wanted to get everyone else's ideas, and wanted to know what they would respond to, but not give them any foresight as on the post before. Sorry, it sounds almost like the situation we have now. Bureaucracy is just that...
I started this to see what might be offered, and I said at the beginning, I would add my thoughts.

I apologize for not understanding your motives. I am as blunt as they come. Can't help it. That's the Southerner coming out. I will tell it like it is. Regardless of the fact of whether or not we agree. i don't like it when people beat around the bush. It sounded like you were playing the awaiting other people's response before you made your intentions known. If I sound abrupt it's because I am. I am trying to get along with people on here believe it or not, I just like to stir things up, and found out what's there after the dust settles. Are people genuine most of the time? Yes, but there are those that seem to like to hide behind their facades. I am what I am, regardless of who's watching. Know what I mean, Vern?
Now back on subject. Now that you've let your motivations be known, and your ideas, I feel we might be able to go on with this debate.

As I read the exchange here I am not really hearing anything architectural. I recognize the points being made the debate about law and human interaction with religion.
Well, you started this post off by using spirituality as the guide for this one world government. If the shoe fits on the left, don't put it on your right. I think that denomination should be a private, intimate thing. No one can say how I am going to feel about the gods, or religion. I am just telling you from my perspective. I don't think that church and state should be connected, or interelated in any shape form or fashion.

I have a scenario: We were all taught that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Correct? Well, I believe that energy has evolved to become the enigmatic life force that makes everything move and shake, sparkle and fade. And I believe that when an individual "soul" or "deity" moves on they pick up a certain "genetic structure of the soul", if you will. I believe that once we move past the space/time/everyday in-out routine we realize that there can be a universe in the smallest of places. And that there is no death. Once you realize this you become a deity or God over your own way, in the universe. What do you believe? Is it the same? Or are you strictly religious? Are you a Liberal in the sense of family, friends? Are you serve purposefully or purposefully serve? I also believe that an individual can not and will not see the light if they've never experienced the myre and darkness. Because people who live all their lives in the light and have nothing happen to them, eventually become dulled, not knowing what they have. Take one of said individuals and put them in the ghetto, or in Honduras, where kinds are living in garbage dumps. Let them know what it's like to scrounge for their next hundred meals. It changes a person, when they don't get fed nourishment of heart and soul, or love. Material objects aside.

Now that I've given you my point of view on god and the universe, what is your perspective? That is where we need to start if we are going to have a true foundation of friendship, fellowship and ultimately be able to change anything in our communities.

Reply to Discussion

RSS


        

Featured Photos

Members

Groups

© 2020   Created by Richard Lukens.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service