Global Gov.

topic posted Thu, February 9, 2006 - 8:30 AM by  Povu
The focus here is on the Global Government.

1. This is pertaining to Earth, which means that what I want my city and personal life to be like should not enter. How I want to live my life will determine how I vote in my city. The city has huge freedom of action, so any specifics, like "I want schooling based on apprenteship with only basic gerneral studies" do not apply to this post.

2. Because this is an attempt to create a universal system it must be minimal, a skeleton that allows for flexibility.

3. This system is designed to outlive ALL of us. Therefor, its mandate should be something LONG term, so don't be afraid to envision something you don't believe you will ever see. Have faith in the future consequences of our actions, and be wary of these consequences.

4. We must clearly define the juristiction of G.G. verse city state. these juristictions will overlap, but if there is too much flexibility it will allow a twisting of laws which enable a strong ruler to exert unwanted influence on the world. The focus here is Global UNpower. I do not seek to place a dictator in charge of Earth. Also, remember that if this system is still in place in 300 years we have no idea what kind of man will be in charge, therefore the way we word and define the system is our only influence on preserving the future. I am not saying this to be negative on our future potential, but rather to emphasise the care with with we must conduct ourselves in undertaking a task of such consequencial weight.

5. Again, please do not be afraid of saying something that you might feel others will judge as silly. remember the first time man flew? the first sumbarine insulated with pig fat? The world is round, no flat? Its much easier to giggle at ten silly ideas before we find a gem, than to sit in silence waiting for the perfect vision to strike us. Also, by examining unpracticle ideas we expand our basis for why the good ones are the right ones, a process of deduction if you will.
posted by:
Povu
Canada
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Global Gov.

    Thu, February 9, 2006 - 9:56 AM
    I have an idea...if the Global President has to be overthrown because he/she gets to greedy and empowered with his/herself, the punishment is execution!

    Just kiddin Brett! Although... it would prevent someone from getting too big for their britches! :~)
    • Re: Global Gov.

      Fri, February 10, 2006 - 11:52 AM
      First, this is my second time writing this. when I hit submit it timed me out and I lost everything :(
      So, to learn form this; ALLWAYS ctrl+c your post BEFORE submitting, so you don't have to re-type if something goes wrong.

      so... grrrr..... to remember and re-create....


      1st: define the Government: the Government is a higher energetic being that is beyond any man. The government 'owns' (a better word anyone?) the earth. No Man in the Government is the Government, especially not the president. Every member in the government is paid like any other job. EVERY position in the Government is open to application by Any citizen of earth (for elected positions you must work up through the channels; this relates to Mayors, head of region and the Pres.)
      The Government delegates what land is used for what. The Government is in service of Gaia, ALL of Gaia NOT just man, therefore increasing bio-diversity with sustainability is prime importance.
      M.G. (municipal Government): a cell within the Gov. this is a very independent city state, following the Global Constitution and Government set land use regulations.

      Let us start with philosophy 101

      We are all equal. We are not equal
      BOTH of these are valid statements.

      We are NOT equal;
      Einstein will beat G.W. Bush in a physics quiz.
      Muhammad Ali would whip my ass in a boxing ring.
      The 'average' full-blooded Zulu is taller than the 'average' full blooded Chinese man.
      A women does not have a penis, a man does not have power.

      Bob takes pride in his work, Fred is a slacker. I say; pay Bob more money.
      Bob and Jimbo work their hardest. Jimbo is bigger and stronger than Bob and accomplished twice as much work in the same time.
      They both put in the same effort and should be paid the same.
      Jimbo expends more calories due to his greater work. Therefore he should be paid more to replenish himself.
      Jimbo's work is more beneficial to society than Bob's due to his efficiency, therefore; Jimbo should be paid more.
      Bob trained Jimbo, and so is responsible for Jimbo's ability to do any work at all; should he be paid for a percentage of Jimbo's work?
      Phill comes in and does half as much work as Bob 'cause he is a slacker: surely he should be paid the least.
      Trevor comes to work and he is weak, he has emotional stresses built up which prevents his body from building stronger muscles. He works twice as hard as Jimbo, but can only accomplish as much as Phill; should he be paid Phil's wage, or Jimbo's or be fired for his inefficiency?
      If we pay them all the same wage then they could all work only as hard as Phill; productivity declines.

      We ARE equal:

      We ALL breathe, eat, sleep, and feel warmth. Each one of us collapses the probability wave function of the matter in our surroundings; we are each a God of our existence. This 'we' extends to the birds, bees, beasts and plants - Gaia.

      This unfortunately, doesn't answer the questions above either.

      1stly, what I am about to propose MIGHT have to be a M.G. (municipal Government) thing, in which case this is what I would vote for in my city but could not force on the world. :

      We have a farm; owned by the G.G.
      Local farmers work the farm and are paid by their farm manager, who sells the crops to the retail sector of the city. The farm manager decides who gets a raise. The director of Agriculture decides if this manager gets a raise.
      In the city we have Grocery store A, managed by Bob, and B, managed by Fred.
      Bob starts workers out at $10.00 an hour and imports food for a wide variety.
      Fred starts people at $6.5, and only uses local food.
      2/3rd of the city squeeze into store A for their friendly (higher paid) atmosphere and great variety, which justifies the higher prices.
      1/3rd is content with the cheaper prices and just the necessities found at B
      After the stores have paid all their bills, including the workers (Bob and Fred are also just doing a job), the profits go to the Director of Retail in the city, Carmen. Carmen does not put this in her pocket- ALL people are paid a wage, there is no profit as the profit is coming from fruits that were given FREELY by Gaia. Carmen sees the overcrowding and demand at store A and so uses these profits to expand store A to cater for the demand. Excess profits are funneled into the G.G. coffers.
      These G.G. coffers belong to NO man, and are used to pay the Global police, rebuild infrastructure and pay the G.G. officials.
      In this way, an efficient G.G. would not have to charge taxes as ‘profits’ from business would cover costs.
      In this system an oil tycoon would be paid well for managing a company well, but would not make royalties off of natural resources that he doesn’t own.
      This means that someone who wants a computer, Nike shoes and AAA steak with every meal, would have to work VERY hard to support such a lifestyle, and would be able to do so if he wished.
      Someone else, who is content with the basics, would only have to work a 4 hour day to support herself.

      Again, this to me is ideal…. But I emphasize that my main priority is Freedom, therefore such a system could not be forced on the world, but would manifest easily if every city state wanted it. ; More encouragement for us to found a new city and show the world an example 

      Next: I’m pretty confidant that MANY of you reading this are SCREAMING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!!!!!!

      Indeed.

      This is why you may have noticed my conclusions in other tribes have been that none of the above will manifest until a spiritual revolution has swept the planet. This revolution began many years ago and is picking up momentum. It has touched my life and the fire it lit in my heart has already spread to many others. This will cover the earth like wildfire: which still takes time and faces many obstacles such as deserts and mountains, rivers and oceans. So we become Fire Elementals and take the flame where it had never dreamed of going before, we EVOLVE.

      The fire Elementals will fill the role we fear most…

      The Global Police (America!, FUCK YEAH!!!!.... yeah right, ptuiy): The Global Police are the Paladins, Druids, Clerics, Good Wizards, Saints and Rangers of Gaia. These are men and women, JUST like you and me, ‘I’, who pledge their LIVES to protect, heal and purify. These people hunt down and expose corruption, stop terrorism and enforce the Global Constitution. These are the only force that deals with violent crimes, and subsequently is the only armed force.

      The M.G. Police handle Bi-laws specific to their city, have only non-lethal weapons and will assist the Global police whenever necessary.

      I say NO executions EVER. Whenever possible a criminal will be neutralized without loss of life, however, if the attempt to neutralize a threat places the guardians of peace in danger, then the criminal takes the bullet.
      If you kill someone in the moment of making a mistake you cheat them of the opportunity to learn from, and repent that mistake.

      The Global Constitution: I’ll open a new post for this; I want Everyone’s input.
      Basically; no killing, stealing, raping, kidnapping, enslaving, or insulting lamas. ;)

      M.G. constitution: changes form city to city, IE: No smoking, no more than 17 dildos or 8 lesbians per household, no walking your horse through town on Tuesdays between 8pm and 8:25.pm
      You know, all the silly stuff people like to make rules about. 
      • Re: Global Gov.

        Fri, February 10, 2006 - 5:25 PM
        One very critical thing with the farming, produce system you propose is that checks must be in place to ensure that one crop is not over cropped or monocropped. In example present day lobbyists for soy. When an industry creates a demand for something, it spills over and influences what is grown.
        I am unsure whether you are concidering here a single farm for each city. I think more could possibly be gained from a farmers market type of system, but each farm still comprises of a mixed farm, providing some of several foodstuffs, with various farmers specializing SLIGHTLY more upon a certain crop(s). This specialization would depend upon various factors, such as the landscape/soil, interest in certain crops/animals, etc. It would be very difficult for one farm to produce some of everything, as there are various symbiotic relationships between certain plants and some that are destructive to each other.
        Also, a cooperative system could be built between farmers to establish recovery time for certain crops, where a farmer grows a certtain crop for a while(along with other crops and livestock of course) then another farmer grows that crop so the first can crop other plants in place. A cooperative in this sense could help even out competition between farmers, which would not only ease financial issues, but ease the pressure on the land for a certain crop, which tend to wax and wane in demand.
        Also, I believe that a great implimentation would be to have a program where every individual living off the food of the farm, puts in X hours at the farms per month, so they not only gain appreciation for the process but also become a partial ecologist, someone who is truly aware of the value of soil health on civilization's health.
        Portions of food would be given as payment, thus subsidizing to some degree the diet and nutrition of each citizen.
        A mixture between the closeness and synergy of communal living, and the progress and prosperity of a city life could be combined, taking pressure off of the economy to be the sole means of generating income/sustinance.

        Specific farming practices that work to build soil health should be standard.
        One gem I have become aware of is The Keyline Method. This essentially works to allow the land to absorb the greatest amount of moisture possible, by establishing contours of the land, tree lines, dams(not of creeks or rivers, but water storage) to hold rainwater/runoff, and careful tilling that does not churn the healthy topsoil under. Check out : www.soilandhealth.org/01aglib...toc.html
        It has seen use largly in Australia, where rainfall is meak, with much apparent success.
        The method allows cultivation of steeper grades of landscape, where normally erosion would not permit it.
        In fact, it prefers grades, instead of flat land.

        I will be back with more input.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Global Gov.

      Fri, February 10, 2006 - 5:35 PM
      Now Now Silent siren...lol I said no more weapons...lol but must admit am with you on that one too...lol as I had stated in my other rebutal onhere...I really feel that when the time comes we will actually be able go back to a way of "spiritual council / leaders"....governed by something that has become foreign to all of us.....
      • Re: Global Gov.

        Fri, February 10, 2006 - 8:20 PM
        A global President is just a name of an elected official. we could call him the giant turnip if we wished.

        A spiritual leader: absolutely, could be.

        the only reason I say President is because he/she is elected.

        so, spiritual leader campaigns in his city. he does good, becomes mayor.
        as a mayor he is part of the house of his region. in this position he meets with all of the other mayors in the regeon. Region is determined geographicly, according to climate and topography.
        In this house the mayor (who is a spiritual leader) would work with the other mayors to create harmony in the region and allocate resources to issues in the region ie: forest fires, floods etc.

        If this spiritual leader, lets call him Thando, is a good influence in the house and his views are welcomed by the region, then he will be voted head of the region. as head of the region he has the actual say of where the energy flows in the inter-city space. Ie: what land is national park, wheather or not a dam will be built. Once elected to this position he forfeits his role as mayor. If, once elected he does something stupid, the other mayors in the house can veto him (by majority vote) and a new election is called. If the mistake is not tooo bad, he can still be re-elected

        Also, as the head of the region he now steps up into a new arena: the house or regionS (note the 's'). This is the house (by the way, as with 'president', 'house' can become any other word) where the heads of all regions on Earth meet to discuss the situation of Gaia.
        Their purpose is to be the brain of the superorganism, feeding it awareness gathered from the mayors of every city on Earth. From this bunch our Spiritual friend Bob could offer brilliant insight on how to sovle certain problems, and could be ellected president of the Earth to manifest the plans. Again, if he does something stupid he is vetoed by the house.

        so, this system does not conflict with the possible rise of a spiritual leader/ guide type.

        Next, Heyden; thank you for your input. we would be much obliged if you would start a new post entitled "Ministry of agriculture" Focus on one city, as initialy, one city is all we have to work with. then please give us a skeleton of a global interdependant agricultural system.

        so far, If I havn''t been specific about something its cause I havn't got a specific plan, or perhaps just havn't had the time to write it out yet ;).

        one thing I would like to suggest: my point about no ownership of land: a farmer would not 'own' any crops, but would get paid for his farming efforts regardless of crop yeild and quality. the thing that would encourage us to keep up crop quality even if we arn't paid based on it is the fact that the vast majority of what we eat would come from our farms in the city, so you care for you crops because they are your livelyhood, not because they are your profit. I don't like the bartering system because if I have a pig and I want a table, well the carpenter might want a shrubbery, but the shrubber wants lots of sushi, but the sushi guy wants a bicycle, and my pig shat on the bike-maker's carpet, so now I owe him a yo-yo.
        money is non-perishable, you can fit lots of it in your pocket, and its universaly exchangeable. I see no reason to drop it.

        having EVERYONE work some time on a farm every month: you know what... that might just be an excellent idea. you could have the farmers, who live on the farms and spend most of thier days on them, but everyone else could spend a few days a month lending a hand and thus get back in touch with the truth that we are not above earth, we ARE earth :)

        however, this practice of interdiciplanary careers would not be something I'd implement as a global government mandate, but rather something that would make me vote for a mayor who supported it in our city.
        To enjoy the freedoms we want we must be willing to allow other cities equal freedom.

        Thanks everyone for reading and contributing to the discussion, this will go far :)
        • Re: Global Gov.

          Mon, February 13, 2006 - 12:38 AM
          i've been following these postings and will share my deeper thoughts as i can...right now my time is short so here is a brief response.

          brett...this is quote from your original poste:
          "Also, remember that if this system is still in place in 300 years we have no idea what kind of man will be in charge, therefore the way we word and define the system is our only influence on preserving the future. "

          since you name the importance of 'the way we word' our thoughts i'd propose that we don't assume whoever is in charge is a man. i notice you use the term man as opposed to people, humans, citizens or any other gender neutral word many times. it may seem an obvious point from a woman, but it seems that the intentions we name do have power, and therefore we should choose our words wisely. taking that further, i personally hope for a different model where there is never one person overseeing the whole structure, but circles of people representing their communities or larger groups that can convene on a global scale.

          it's late, so that's all i'll say for now, but i do appreciate this tribe and the intent.

          many blessings.
          • Re: Global Gov.

            Mon, February 13, 2006 - 8:53 AM
            Thank you Tortuga. You're point about my use of man is valid. I do NOT mean man as in only male, and it’s simply a force of habit in writing. If you read carefully there is at least one or two instances where I say she or her (somewhere...). I just figured it would be obvious that due to my focus on equality and freedom I do not favor one sex over the other.
            Regardless, what I know my words to mean is not necessarily how someone else will read my words. I'll attempt to be more mindful in future.


            "i personally hope for a different model where there is never one person overseeing the whole structure, but circles of people representing their communities or larger groups that can convene on a global scale. "

            The focus in this system is that the individual cities have more control, rather than a government or country. This point never seems to get across. This is consolidated, global UNpower. Here, your vote, in your city has hugely more weight on the effect of your city than it would have if you were voting for a president of a country.

            I know many are thinking I’m contradicting myself. I want a president of the world.
            Yet, a president of the world would have very little power at all. This person could not tell a city what its bi-laws should be, what their religious policy should be etc. neither could the head of your region for that matter.
            Their roles are to look at how we as humanity are affecting the world as a whole - looking at the global trends that individual cities would be unaware of. The president is about coordinating and facilitating the needs of all the cities. IE. Building a highway to connect Edmonton and Calgary so that the two cities can trade.

            The reason that I want (I say I because this really is just my opinion and my opinion does not (should not) dominate this tribe) a single figure making decisions is because of personal life experience.

            If I get together with a group of 10 people and we have a decision to make we can have no one take charge and then the group must debate to a consensus, or we could have the group debate and then the leader acts by what he feels to be the pulse of the group, or we could have a dictator who doesn't even listen to the group and just does what he wants.

            In the consensus you have an INSANELY inefficient decision making process. Do not take my word for it, try it out. Getting 10 people from different parts of the world to agree on something is hard to do, and in some cases, impossible. Get a Muslim, a Christian, an Atheist and a Mormon to agree on the role of religion. Get a communist and a capitalist to agree on an economic system.

            The dictator: VERY efficient: the decision happens as soon as the problem arises.
            BUT, the dictator is most likely not working in the best interests of Gaia. And, if he makes a bad decision… so what?

            The middle one - how I see the presidency thing: Accountable dictatorship if you will.
            The group talks, the president is part of this group. They discuss and debate. In the end it’s a 3/7 split. The discussion is regarding an invasion of a city by another city - people are DYING right NOW!!!! We could debate for weeks before reaching a consensus, OR the president acts NOW, guided by his interpretation of the discussion in the House of Regions (which is a house that represents the Entire Globe).
            Now of course, this president may make a mistake, she may even be headstrong and happen to be one of the 3 in the 3/7 split. he may act against the will of the majority....
            BUT as soon as she does so, the other 7 members could Veto him, elect one of their own (Since they are the majority) and then act in the way that they feel is appropriate.
            This whole Veto, new election, new action process could happen in the span of one Hour.

            So please, do not judge what I propose by what goes on in current democracies or communist or socialist countries, what I am proposing, though simmilar to MANY methods, is actually new, and has never been done before.

            I hope and yet doubt that this clears it up.

            So, let me ask you a question: ruled by a group: how big? Every mayor of every city discussing one cities infrastructure? Or just remove the president's position from the house of regions, now you have 300 rulers?
            Or do you mean instead of a mayor have a council of 10? still elected?
            Does that mean our house of regions is then a house of 30000?


            I feel that the only thing I should have a say in is my city. I feel that this is good for the freedom of all.
            BUT!!! If everyone only looked at 'my' city, then no one cares about what our cities are doing together: the region.
            So I propose a house made to look at this and help the mayors co-ordinate a balance between 'Me' and 'Us'
            But, obviously what we do here in the Canadian prairies doesn't really relate to what goes on in the forest basins of central Africa, so our Region wouldn't really have a say on how to deal with land use in Africa.
            YET, as a globe, we are still interconnected, so I propose a house made up of representatives from ALL regions to collaborate and understand what the bigger 'we' is doing.
            {Then, someone has to make a decision, and someone needs to be accountable for the decision, or we cannot evolve.} - This point is where I seem to run into conflict. Does this not make sense? If not, what is the problem and what do you propose in its place?

            Lastly, for those of you who feel discouraged and just want to give up, thinking there just isn’t an answer, I say no, we won't make utopia.
            BUT, we will make something new, something better, something evolved. We continue to take a step forward, as all those who came before us fought and died for our freedoms today, so should we press on and persevere to create a better world for our children.

            MUCH love and light to all
            :)

            • Re: Global Gov.

              Tue, February 14, 2006 - 11:45 AM
              ok...let's see if i can respond to this clearly. first of all brett, thanks for your response and all that you're putting out. i know that you're putting a lot of thought into this and it's difficult to ensure that people really understand the spirit and intent of your vision when we're all reading it on our computer screens and not hearing or experiencing it directly.

              i actually was already very clear on your idea of global government. i get that the individual cities have more control and i understand the middle zone the president would play between dictator and consensus process. i don't think it's all together bad and it could work, but it's not my vision. in my vision each city or town has a council. all citizens of the city are invited to council meetings and the representatives on the council are rotating so that anyone who would like to take part to that level is invited. this is based on the idea that you have a general statement of intent or constitution that helps keep people on the same page. for instance, you agree as a city that you have a goal of being in harmony with nature, so that all would agree to make no decisions that would be blatantly destructive to the environment. one member of each council would be empowered to attend state or country wide council meeting to discuss broader decisions. this role again would be rotating so that no one person is given the final power to make sole decisions for their city. likewise, a member or perhaps two or three members of the larger councils would then attend a global council which perhaps met once a year. added to the councils at each level would be a circle of elders who carried the history of the people and an older wisdom and spirituality.

              while idealic, this system has been put to work in the past in a similar form to my own vision. in the middle ages the yiddish colonies spread throughout what is now poland, the ukraine and lithuania created the Council of the Four Lands. it lasted for about one hundred years. the council included members of local kehiles or local councils along with six rabbis. the local kehiles made all basic decisions for their towns while the large council made decisions on commerce and relations with the european world, overarching religious and spiritual teachings and other larger issues. it certainly was flawed, and yet it united vast lands and a people separated by differing cultures and beliefs for a very long time during one of the most prosperous rennaissances for the jewish people.

              in more modern times we can look to activist movements particularly a few years back, hilighted in 1999 with protests against the WTO and later the World Bank/IMF, the political conventions and more. leading up to these events small groups of people formed affinity groups. each affinity group would decide together how they would take part in the larger action...what their role would be. one or two members of each affinity group were empowered to make decisions at larger meetings making broader decisions for the actions. those empowered to take part in larger meetings rotated. in this way thousands of people came together in a very organized manner to have a huge impact.

              i've had a lot of experience in consensus process...sometimes beautiful and empowering and sometimes truly infuriating. the smallest scale, working with a few people closest to you like your affinity group members is often a great experience. while there is disagreement, it's clear that most of you are on the same page. as you expand into larger councils the work can be more difficult and it's important to name where each group is coming from, what each one's intent is and what each one's limit is or the place where they would feel the need to block a vote. something important to remember though is that consensus process doesn't imply that everyone is in agreement, so much as everyone is willing to move forward with varying degrees of support. consensus means that all sides are heard and there are no blocks to moving forward.

              that seems like enough for now. i hope it's all clear and doesn't feel like a challenge to your own vision...i'm sharing what i would create i everyone would listen to me and i'm sure we'd all see the flaws or kinks in my vision once it played out.

              many blessings,
              loren hadassah:)

              • Re: Global Gov.

                Tue, February 14, 2006 - 11:47 AM
                ps. thanks C.C. i appreciated your thoughts as well:)
                • Re: Global Gov.

                  Tue, February 14, 2006 - 3:35 PM
                  ok, so we are on the same page with the basic structure of government then, the difference being one elected mayor vs. a non-ellected, rotating group.
                  on the next level, instead of sending the one mayor to the regional meeting, send a few representatives.
                  so, are these representatives ellected? or is it first come first serve? (to the regional level)
                  how many representatives should go? 3? 5? 200?
                  I see the value here of a group in that if you had 3 distinct opinions in the city, a single mayor might only present one of these to the region as it is the majority oppinion. but, if say 5 people were representing a city, they could each shed a little more colour on the state of that city.
                  I guess the same number of people would then go to the house of regionS from the region

                  In the city, how big is this council?
                  say the city has 100 000 people. a council of 10? or 1000? can you be on the council for more than one year running? what if the whole city found Jill to be a truly amazing leader and wanted her to stay on an extra year, could they vote for it?
                  what if there are 10 positions but 300 people want to be on the council, is it ellected or first come first serve?
                  is ANYONE eligible to be on the council, or do you have to be a certain age or pass an exam to see you're reasoning capability?
                  Or, is it that everyone has to be on the council and we have a random collection of the populos from which names are drawn? ( I assume no one thinks this is a good idea)

                  then at the presidential level, your council now has a minimum of at least one person per region, and there are quite a few different geographical regions on earth. do we do rep by pop, where a bigger region has more representatives, or is it the same # of reps per region? then, does this entire council have to vote on every desicion? or must they all discuss until consensus? (Redefining my personal definition of concencus from 'all in agreeance' to now mean 'all in acceptance'), or do we have a council within this council that listens to the discussion and then makes the desision? which is kinda like a president made of a few people? and then again, how many people make this final layer?
                  Also, is this final layer done by rotation? or ellection?
                  and if done by rotation, if the majority doesn't agree to thier desision, is there any veto cappability?

                  finaly, once we put in all the nessisary numbers so that we have a working model, with regards to those frustrating moments... (my experience of groups of 4 to 7 people have been that roughly 10 percent of discussions end in deadlock, but I have only had 4 serious groups like this, so my experience is definately limited). What happens when we have a deadlock in a committee and the desicion in question holds people's lives in the ballance, lives slipping away as hours of debate crawl by.
                  at this point would a majority vote take over?
                  Or do you truly believe that this will never happen (I don't think youve said anything to quite this effect yet)

                  Pro president:
                  If president screws up he is instantly cast out and a new president is ellected, there is a figurehead for accountability.

                  this CAN be applied to the council style of government, but then implies a removal of the whole council and then we have to figure out the next rotation.. or perhaps this would be an ellected council?

                  Thank you for your understanding and input. my problem so far in trying to 'save the world' has been finding other people who actualy care enough to give this serious thought and who are open minded enough to hear other views and then objectively find the pros and cons.

                  so, the main pro I'm taking from your point of view is that one mayor only represents one aspect of the city, as close to pulse of the city as that may be, whereas a council provides a multi-faceted expression of the city, still not perfectly accurate, but more detailed than a 'monochrome' print.

                  the con is simply efficiency and where time can mean lives, efficiency is quite valuble.

                  the main confusion I'm having: rotating.

                  for a city of 100 000 where 10 000 are poiticaly minded, how would this work?

                  mmm, then on an un-related note.

                  anyone have different names for house of region and house of regions?
                  if the only difference is an 's' it could create some confusion should a typo occur
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Global Gov.

                    Sat, October 21, 2006 - 11:04 AM
                    My goodness Povu--what a great deal to type...twice. Perhaps just accept that there was a good reason for you to be typing it again...I have no idea what that might have been..I just know there are no accidents.

                    2 points
                    You are suggesting that each person gets paid for what he produces to the extent that he/she produces them..yes?

                    My...issue with that is that we/you would have to have a system of determining what the value of each product or service would be. Can any of us know the value of any good or service except to the extent that it serves us personally?

                    Secondly--concerning the rules..what about the concept that rules are made to be broken? My point is that rules are just a poor substitute for common sense. JMO

                    I suggest we look at the source..or the cause of the motivation to steal, rape, kill etc..and address those. First solution off the top of my head is to offer support when needed..rather than 20 years later as we currently do in our society..as in too little too late.

                    Now I realize that I am on a totally different page re government.
                    My page says NO GOVERNMENT.

                    My page says that in a world of self aware sovereigns who will by the very nature of being self empowered and aware sovereigns understand that to deny another free will in ANYTHING is to deny oneself the same thing.

                    Further, self empowered and self aware sovereigns need no one to tell them how to live. that is...need no government.

                    Granted, I have no idea of how to get from here to there..I only know that it begins with me..and it begins in love.

                    And I certainly agree that we need some sort of dynamic system for the sharing of resources and production of new technologies. One idea about that; Ortegrity, a deriviative of the word Tensigrity is a model of finding the best possible solution for all concerned in any given situation. A model which by the way which is being used and tested with positive results.
                    www.synearth.net/Restricte...ial/OT.pdf

                    great thread by the way and thanks for not bashing me cuz I'm on a slightly different page.
                    I AM reflecting you Lama Lama....

Recent topics in "2020, a city of dreams"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
we should make a pact Unsubscribed 0 January 1, 2008
MY plan thus far Povu 9 December 20, 2007
The Glorification of Money B 0 October 13, 2007
Hermetics Lecture in New York City Al 0 October 12, 2007