Nice to see people so actively looking for an alternate direction and considering new ideas.

I highly recommend that you guys check out the venus project. its the sort of quantum jump that is required for us to outgrow the mindset that has brought the world to where it is right now.

@The Emotion Machine, i think free market capitalism might not be the best solution right now. it was great 100 years ago, but the problem is that it is based on the assumption/requirement of ever accelerating growth but we only have a finite planet. Instead of an ever growing economy that leaves a large part of the population out, we need a balanced load economy which has the realistic possibility to create abundance for everyone for them to think and grow and contribute.

Eg. In manual transmission cars, u don’t start with 4th gear, u start with 1st gear which gives u a higher torque (growth), and as speed picks up u shift higher for more power (efficiency and sustainability). If u get stuck at 1st gear, u’ll probably get a lot less mileage and overheat ur engine.. its a loose analogy but i think it explains broadly what venus project is about. Its about evolving into a new paradigm. no more communism or capitalism but something brand new.

pls check out the venus project at http://www.thevenusproject.com/ or on youtube and lemme know wat u think.

Thank you for your comment.
The time for justice has come. Unite we must for it is the only way out from the nightmare that the vast majority of the planet lives.

The process of rectifying the wrongs of the prevailing culture is in full swing. People are coming together
and there is nothing to stop this process. Those of us who have awakened from the cultural trance must recognize this self organizing process, help spur it on and raise aware of what is going on and where enabling information maybe be sought.

I am grateful for your contribution to this effort.

Rohaan Solare

I Love the Beauty of Diversity yet we need to UNIFY upon our Common Survival Interests and Long-Range Strategic Visions.

Venceremos Unidos! We Will Win United!
Che Peta-de-Aztlan
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
Website: http://help-matrix.ning.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
c/s

My proposal is intended to function:
1. As a big picture assessment of the human cultural condition,
2. As an argument for what we must do in practical terms in order to counter act the prevailing culture of destruction and exploitation.
3. As pointer to some leading edge ideas and already existing organizations that could serve as proto-types and think tanks towards the development of an exo-establishment that would amount to a “People’s Congress.”

The goal of my proposal is leadership organization founded on ecological and egalitarian principles. The Ancient Greeks city states seemed to have functioned well with their pure direct democratic system.

Direct democracy or some variation of it, is now only a viable option due to internet connectivity. The details of such a system would be worked by the experts. I am confident that our biggest obstacle is getting existing organizations to consider the more ambitious plan of large scale collective action.

To this effect I am very interested in collaborating with others on the creation of a forum/think tank to help bring credibility, acceptance and momentum to the idea of large scale collective action.

If anyone is interested in being part of such a collaboration please contact me via the contact form http://emergent-culture.com/contact/

I’d suggest referencing a couple other sites. For a group promoting direct democracy, try http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/

The wikipedia entry on Direct Democracy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy is very good for a more objective viewpoint and references to related material. Interestingly, I note under the section on the US, it says this:

“Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the “leveling impulse” of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large.”

Well, perhaps we have exactly the opposite problem that Madison worried about and we desperately need a leveling impulse to rein in the extreme disparity of the million-to-one ratio between the most powerfully rich and the huge and growing mass of the poorest among us.

While I would agree that direct democracy is the direction we should be headed, I believe it will be a while before we can achieve its intended benefits even if we had it available to us at this time. Direct democracy would not necessarily be the correct leveling force and might instead more of a force of chaos. Without a society that is already equitable in many other ways, it leaves open the problem of how are all able to participate effectively and fairly. A quiz, as you suggest, could be prone to abuse as well.

One deeply inherent problem, I believe, is that we are a species raised from the origin of our culture in hierarchical social settings, meaning we have a strong inclination follow leaders. Just pretending that this inclination does not exist will not make it go away and it will assert itself one way or another. I am suggesting that we can use that inclination instead. Hierarchies can be more efficient as well, if they are implemented well.

The problem with non-proportional representation is that it can be easily dominated by a few powerful forces that are not a good representation of the people’s will. This is exactly by design, if we believe Madison got his way. I am not suggesting we should trust such a rule by the dominant few – it has obviously steered us perilously wrong. But the problem, I would argue, is not that we choose leaders but that we are not able to choose truly representative leaders. Proportional representation should have a much better chance of leveling the inequities by always encouraging a better, more true representation of the people. And since it is representative, it leverages our inclination to choose and follow leaders and allows the efficiency of hierarchy to help us rather than hurt us.

Proportional representation, once implemented, can eventually be scaled up to have many more representatives, as many as the system can effectively support. Using the internet, we should be able to build a legislative body of many thousands of people now. With one representative for every 1000 people, we would have a house of representatives with about 300,000 people. Ultimately, when scaled up to the entire population, we will have the equivalent of direct democracy, where everyone is represented by themselves, if they choose to participate.

I agree we must have much better ways of dealing with what is said in public, always encouraging attempts to get at the truth. But we must be careful to guard the freedom to say whatever we feel needs to be said regardless of what others might believe the truth is. Also, saying what you want to say is totally useless if very few can hear it. Several conflicting forces here need to be balanced out in favor of whatever promotes the greater good for society. The goal should always be encouraging more effective participation by more people.

But direct democracy only leads to a tyranny of the majority. It just legalizes bullying and peer pressure on a massive scale. What we really need is a constitutional government that stays within its bounds. I believe government has only a select few functions – protecting others against coercion (stealing/killing/fraud), national defense, protecting voluntary contracts, and perhaps providing some infrastructure and a small safety net. Other than that these changes need to take place within society itself. Trying to achieve them through government coercion is a recipe for disaster. You need to conduct change through appealing to people’s reason, not through government force.

So as you can see I am not a guy that believes the ends justify the means. The means ARE what determines the ends. Ruling others by force (which is what a direct democracy still does) is not ever something I can support.

I am also under the assumption that this movement is fairly undirected in the means of achieving its goals. Sure, we can join organizations that support our cause but not all of these organizations are created equal. If we plan on lobbying to government to help achieve these goals then you can count me out. I don’t support substituting one form of tyranny with another. What I would really like to see is a dismantle of government, decentralized power, and a movement back towards individual free choice and – yes – capitalism!

When you say “capitalism has failed” I am almost positive that what you are really referring to is corporatism. All I can recommend from this point forward is to check out Mises.org and look more closely into the arguments for free markets and laissez-faire capitalism.