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

Marc, what a great discussion you started...

My first thought is... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather, look at what we already have that is worth salvaging. Amongst the many -isms that exist on our planet and are used regularly, we can gain from those that are tried and true and discard those without universal benefit.

Embracing the communistic concept of non-ownership is a good start. And Democracy has merits... though like the merits of communism, are under-utilized in terms of universal benefit. Tribalism offers wisdom regarding sustainably caring for problems where they are created. McDonough's cradle to cradle concept takes that to a corporate responsibility level... another sort of tribe.

As per some previous statements about spirituality, I would like to note the difference between spiritual and religious. We are all comprised of spirit and flesh; when the spirit departs, the flesh dies. We need not have talked about or believed in a god, attended church or even considered the mysteries of life, to have lived this life that spirit connects us to. No matter how we interpret it, the spirit is merely the wave that moves the water.

I will come back to this question after sleeping on it. I like that your question is asking us to envision that which does not yet exist... On my blog, I posted "20 elements of an ecology of peace". I mention that, because it was also a uniquely difficult task to envision what a culture of peace would be like... since we have so little experience with it. Many think that a peace movement is a reaction to war. It is more than that. Good night.
I thought we were trying to go for a newer gov't mule. What is so special about communistic ideals? It is still a form of gov't that failed.

I think we ought to try and take care of our own for a while. Stop trying to change the way other countries think, and start changing the way we do. Start these community discussions, see what we can do, as Marc said, locally. continue it on to the top. An ideal situation would be to run the cronies out of the White House. We can govern our own. We know what is right and wrong without someone else's help. I believe that haveing a central govenment is where every other culture is missing the point. We have to understand that we can't control an entire populus with mere words. we don't need to control the populus, There should be a centralized connectivity to everyone, and have a community discussion between different States, cities, townships, etc. What do you guys think?
James Murff said: "I thought we were trying to go for a newer gov't mule. What is so special about communistic ideals? It is still a form of gov't that failed."

What I said was, "Embracing the communistic concept of non-ownership is a good start..."
I'm a salvage artist... both with art and humanity. We know that failure occurred in all systems to date... does that mean they had no merit? Is there nothing good to be salvaged from past experiences?

When we begin anew, can we not take the good with us and leave behind that which has proven unworthy? Too many modern projects work like that... new everything... nothing thats been seasoned or proven. Even the big emphasis on youth is reflective of that new, new, new demand... as if age and many failures (falling downs) have diminished the usefulness of experiential gained wisdom. (getting back ups)...

I say we use everything, including learning from our mistakes. Sometimes they are the best things we've got.

"I think we ought to try and take care of our own for a while. Stop trying to change the way other countries think, and start changing the way we do. Start these community discussions, see what we can do, as Marc said, locally. continue it on to the top. An ideal situation would be to run the cronies out of the White House. We can govern our own. We know what is right and wrong without someone else's help. I believe that haveing a central govenment is where every other culture is missing the point. We have to understand that we can't control an entire populus with mere words. we don't need to control the populus, There should be a centralized connectivity to everyone, and have a community discussion between different States, cities, townships, etc. What do you guys think?"

I'm thinking you are contradicting yourself in part... when you said "discussion between different States, cities, townships", you are building on the present system. Recycling and re-using old content... it's inevitable.

Oh... and I would not say that Cuba's use of communism has been a failure. Nor would I say that democracy has been a startling success...
"Oh... and I would not say that Cuba's use of communism has been a failure. Nor would I say that democracy has been a startling success..."

Now that's a joke, right?

"I'm thinking you are contradicting yourself in part... when you said "discussion between different States, cities, townships", you are building on the present system. Recycling and re-using old content... it's inevitable."

No, what I am saying is keeping the communities communicating, but not forming any government between them. Just an exchange, kind of like when the Native Americans did around the peace pipe. You're going to have little skermishes. You have to put out the fires. But on the whole, for example: Let's just say that California ends up a republic, Montana ends up a Dictatorship, and New York becomes a country of free will. Well, there needs to be communication so they don't step on each other's toes, otherwise we go back to the old warring tribal, "Unga Bunga, this is my territory" bull. Does this make sense? I mean I talk to people who live in Greece on a regular basis, people who live in Africa, Austrailia. We're not a part of the same country.
If what you read below sounds familiar it is because it is mostly a rip-off of how I perceive Marc's proposed structure with a couple of tweaks.

We still have a system in place that is theoretically ran by popular vote. It is my contention that the majority of votes are bought through ceaseless advertising, among other things, which makes money the real deciding factor. Considering this, it seems that we do not need to compete with the system itself, just the mechanics of it. Instead of forming an entirely new structure, a sub-structure could be put in place to compete and hopefully someday overtake the sub-structure of lobbyists.

A group could set up a network of communication, based on what I perceive Marc to be saying, where-in technology is the conduit for communication amongst groups of people throughout the nation. ( I would like to say the world, and eventually this might morph into something that could be accepted and utilized on a global scale. For now though I am imagining a system underlying our current national system.) Local groups can be set up right now within the current system, and those groups can form ideas on any issue, local, regional, or national. If the idea has appeal or implications beyond the local level, it can be sent through the communication conduit to other local groups on whatever scale the originators of the idea decide. If other local groups pick it up and form a consensus on the idea, this consensus can be forwarded to a regional group of people selected from the local groups on some predetermined basis. Perhaps each idea, or set of ideas, a new person is selected at the local level to “move” to the regional level and represent their locale. This regional group would be receiving the consensus of every local group within their region (likely counties), a consensus would be formed at this level, and sent through the conduit to a state level group made up again, of people that originated at the local group level. Then they were selected to partake at the regional level, and now are selected to "move", with the regional consensus to the state level, and from there the process is repeated to the national level if the idea has national appeal or implications. Each consensus being formed in this sub-structure would come to its final form with a known number of people having been part of the process that reached this consensus. It would then be presented to the appropriate body of government. I would imagine on a state level this would be a large number, and on a national level it would be huge. Politicians interested in keeping their position would listen.


If I understand Marc’s proposition I think this is very similar, but this does not replace the overall structure. Rather, it competes with the underlying sub-structures that currently funnel votes in a legal, but very monetarily driven way. To avoid having our agendas set by the current structure all ideas would be born at the local level and communication would flow from the local level up. This sub-structure would not concern itself with bills, ballot measures, or amendments etc. that are being brought to the various bodies of government through the current system, but rather with bringing complete, well formed ideas, built through the new stand alone sub-structure, with huge numbers of people involved in getting them there.


There are many potential pitfalls to this idea, and much discussion would be needed to find a way of implementing something like this in a manner that gives it a real chance to succeed. Logistics, structure, rules of order, security of communication, and many more items I can’t even conceive of yet would wind up agenda items should something like this get moving. For now however, the idea stage is where we are at, so tweak this one, present a completely different one, or augment something already in play, but let’s keep this discussion going.


Marc said:
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..?
I think, I have been away too long and want to say I wish I had more time this week to get back and comment here.

James is quite right to point out the relative ability for individual communities to conceive of consensus building given they are preoccupied with the fight for survival. Greece Africa Australia indeed...

Jeanne you really brought in some great points about the undercurrent of the spirit driving the flesh.

Whew....

For my part now...Iam still digesting all this...

Lee, you seem to have hit on a vein, but the focus you gave it as developing in a parallel way to the current system really belongs to you. I never really contemplated the implementation timeline, but you seem to have done so quite well.

more soon...
"Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008-2009 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change.

We can’t do this anymore!

So what will we do? what is the next step? one option is World Government. This is a topic that the majority of humanity is not consciously mature enough to discuss, it is the modern day heresy; yet it must be discussed, and planned for, because humanity has evolved (in just the past 100 years) from being separated by great distances and oceans - into what today is often referred to as a Global Village.

We are in a new age, where the people of the world are for the first time in history, truly "inter-dependent." Neither river waters, nor pollution, nor cyberspace recognize geographic boundaries instituted by nation states; a governing system that reflects these mega-political conditions of the new age will require a World Governing body with the same equal human rights for all people based on the International Bill of Human Rights - extended to all people without prejudice. If we all have equal rights, and the world is a global village without the same regional, local, or international boundaries associated with the industrial age, it becomes self-evident that a World Governing Body is the appropriate next evolutionary step for humans to take - the time is now - by necessity.

The question really becomes what is the governing design, who has power, and how they get it. I think each community needs to be the basis of sovereignty, with power to regulate trade and custom in their community in alignment with their unique cultural, religious, or national beliefs; call it semi-sovereignty, like states in the U.S. are supposed to be, sovereign. Local community leaders should allow participatory governing and cooperative alignment of local economic systems with the oversight of regional and international issues by the Federation (World Government) Committee relevant to the issue at hand. Also, local communities need to be supported by the International Body as opposed to paying into it (there should be no fee) making it a win-win relationship instead of domination over a group. The issues go very deep, clearly, and most readers will presume what little is written here is socialism, or communism, or some other form of ISM; I don't think it needs to be that.

To create jobs, and food security, economies need to transition to the concept of net-zero, whereby buildings, cars, factories and homes are designed not only to generate as much energy as they use but to be infinitely recyclable in as many parts as possible. This is not just a good idea, it is a necessity, the world is now flat!

We need diversity in the human and social ecosystem, as seen in nature, not a one world order of ANY kind. We should see ourselves as forest, steppes, deserts, swamps, oceans. A raven should be a raven, not a wolf, and a wolf should not be a tree or a grass. But a forest needs the raven AND the wolf AND the tree AND the grass.
thanks Lance,
Do you think it is possible for a global system to exist which preserves the diversity you so aptly mention..?

Lance Michael Foster said:
We need diversity in the human and social ecosystem, as seen in nature, not a one world order of ANY kind. We should see ourselves as forest, steppes, deserts, swamps, oceans. A raven should be a raven, not a wolf, and a wolf should not be a tree or a grass. But a forest needs the raven AND the wolf AND the tree AND the grass.
My graduate work was in Anthropology. Any system is an elaboration of our band behavior, with alpha males and females running the show, whether cruelly or kindly. So, in a word, no, I don't think it is possible really. Eventually, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That doesn't mean we can't have moments of success...but they are only moments. If we are looking for a workable system of interrelatedness and energy exchange, we need to look at the world systems of Gaia, Mother Earth as a model, not human systems. But there is a limit to growth; death is also part of the cycle.

Marc said:
thanks Lance,
Do you think it is possible for a global system to exist which preserves the diversity you so aptly mention..?

Lance Michael Foster said:
We need diversity in the human and social ecosystem, as seen in nature, not a one world order of ANY kind. We should see ourselves as forest, steppes, deserts, swamps, oceans. A raven should be a raven, not a wolf, and a wolf should not be a tree or a grass. But a forest needs the raven AND the wolf AND the tree AND the grass.
So then in your view is it also true that any imposition of a New World Order would fail by the same criteria..?

Lance Michael Foster said:
My graduate work was in Anthropology. Any system is an elaboration of our band behavior, with alpha males and females running the show, whether cruelly or kindly. So, in a word, no, I don't think it is possible really. Eventually, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That doesn't mean we can't have moments of success...but they are only moments. If we are looking for a workable system of interrelatedness and energy exchange, we need to look at the world systems of Gaia, Mother Earth as a model, not human systems. But there is a limit to growth; death is also part of the cycle.
Marc said:
thanks Lance,
Do you think it is possible for a global system to exist which preserves the diversity you so aptly mention..?
Lance Michael Foster said:
We need diversity in the human and social ecosystem, as seen in nature, not a one world order of ANY kind. We should see ourselves as forest, steppes, deserts, swamps, oceans. A raven should be a raven, not a wolf, and a wolf should not be a tree or a grass. But a forest needs the raven AND the wolf AND the tree AND the grass.
yes

Marc said:
So then in your view is it also true that any imposition of a New World Order would fail by the same criteria..?

Lance Michael Foster said:
My graduate work was in Anthropology. Any system is an elaboration of our band behavior, with alpha males and females running the show, whether cruelly or kindly. So, in a word, no, I don't think it is possible really. Eventually, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That doesn't mean we can't have moments of success...but they are only moments. If we are looking for a workable system of interrelatedness and energy exchange, we need to look at the world systems of Gaia, Mother Earth as a model, not human systems. But there is a limit to growth; death is also part of the cycle.
Marc said:
thanks Lance,
Do you think it is possible for a global system to exist which preserves the diversity you so aptly mention..?
Lance Michael Foster said:
We need diversity in the human and social ecosystem, as seen in nature, not a one world order of ANY kind. We should see ourselves as forest, steppes, deserts, swamps, oceans. A raven should be a raven, not a wolf, and a wolf should not be a tree or a grass. But a forest needs the raven AND the wolf AND the tree AND the grass.

Reply to Discussion

RSS


        

Featured Photos

Members

Groups

© 2021   Created by Richard Lukens.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service