Honest sincerity ... How do you keep everyone involved? Feeling they have a voice?
That's a lot to answer, and the main answer is - I don't know. I really don't know. I often get the feeling you just want to tear the idea to pieces and it's honestly not polished or even formulated enough yet, to be subjected to that kind of intense critique.
It was honest sincerity.
With exception of one statement (the one about all politicians making a statement that they are honest, etc...), I was about as accommodating as one can be with genuine interest of seeing what you could come up with.
My idea is that over time, it can be molded and shaped into something very strong that answers more questions than it poses.
I would honestly like to see that.
It might also help, and I don't mean this to be argumentative, to read a lot of books on civics -- not just American or those used by Americans -- to see what others have contemplated as well.
There are infinite possibilities for all of the questions you asked,
But to begin any government. you have to start with defining the processes in how those will come about, fairly.
It's the toughest and most difficult part of trying to form any cohesive government, the actual processes that make the rules.
Without them you quickly get people complaining you are "favoring" and "not using any, written, impartial procedures" but are making decisions outside of any.
If you've ever run a non-profit, or been part of a peer-regulated body, you would have been exposed to them, so I would like you to share what you have done or seen.
E.g., a rather bare, but basic and useful approach (that often serves the basis of others) to processes to handle the flow in any assembly is "parliamentary procedure."
Without any handle over the process in any assembly of people, it is very difficult for people to feel their voices are being heard equally.
In all honesty, I'm not asking for much, just how you would start.
You talk of research and input, letting everyone have a voice, yet you have not defined how you would begin.
It's very, very difficult to do so in a way that everyone feels they have an equal voice.
Even more so, even the most benevolent of leaders are often called out as unfairly controlling the process when they are just trying to ensure everyone gets an equal chance to be heard.
Even with a significant majority agrees that the "framers" are being impartial, those early processes and foundation are often victim of a "veto by a few" that can make others question the process and results.
Especially if they feel they are not having an equal say, especially so if they are labelled "troublemakers" which puts them more into a position that they not only feel "singled out" but have "nothing to lose."
so I suppose the best answer is, I would want, where possible, the people to decide most of those specifics too,
But how do you start to get the people discussing in a way that they feel equal to each other?
How to you craft an assembly and process the speakers in the way that no one feels more important than another?
How do you ensure they feel equal participation or, even more so, when you get the few detractors that still don't feel equal (no matter your best efforts or even the majority agreeing it is equal), how do you keep them in the fold of the efforts as a whole?
These are the really, really difficult equestions -- even before you've formed any government.
To keep anyone and everyone involved, interested and feeling that they have an equal say among everyone.
I've been involved with countless non-profits over the last 23 years, and I can tell you, it's difficult enough to do it in a small scale (hundreds of people maximum).
but where that is obviously impossible, perhaps we can make the idea so popular that a lot of great thinkers and scholarly types and scientists and economists and peace activists and former leaders, all with one thing in common - that they believe in the idea in principle - can come together to iron out the kinks.
But how do you define commonality in a way that everyone agrees?
How to you ensure they will stay and feel their voice is equal?
You said did I already believe they were ironed out - not even close. There are ten thousand kinks and I haven't even taken the iron to them yet, and I need help with that. But I don't want to run before I can walk. I know what I want to do and why it could work - but I want to get to a position of mass influence where I can raise it as a possibility and popularize it, first, which is what I'm working on.
A "position of mass influence"?
Hmmm, interesting phrase.
I've studied quite a bit of Anglo, American and Franco civics and its history.
I mean this with all honesty, not once have I seen anyone get involved who wasn't already "accepted" as someone who could "work with the old system."
In other words, everyone has always had an established reputation of being involved with the "old system," even if it was abolished or replaced.
Those of the greatest influence were those who were seen as impartial, and could even take the side of the alleged "people who cause the problem."
E.g., John Adams successfully defended the British Soldiers after the Boston Massacre.
President George Washington refused to engage the US into war against England at France's call, and did not want to get involved with any European conflict after our revolution.
Impartiality is a very powerful influence, because people can trust you to see both sides of an argument, let alone more than just the two most common.
On the way, as I meet more intellectuals, I hope to have groups of them working on fine-tuning it to be completely appealing to the people, to put the power in the hands of the people to an absolute degree, but to also be workable, in practice, and to not leave minorities behind.
So, how to you organize their thoughts and considerations into what could be an effective process?
Or better yet, what process are you letting them know this new government would be formed out of?
A process that ensures the basic form of government reflects the views of all the people equally, with equal input in its creation from them?
My idea is like an "electronic town hall meeting" but it is on a specific day, every month, maybe every 6 weeks or 8 weeks if the people prefer it to be more sporadic, and it involves a national holiday on which everyone has the option to go out and make active decisions on policy and taxes and where the money will go and so on.
So you would involve every American on every bill, but only one day every 6-8 weeks?
Do you think Americans could get it done in an 8 hour or possibly 12 hours window every 6-8 weeks?
Furthermore, could not the people who organize the votes play with the scheduling to cause unfavorable or favorable results?
What are the kinks? You listed most of them in your questions.
Those are the most basic of questions -- how to you craft the process to form a government in way people feel equally represented?
And how do you deal with a few detractors as they feel they are not being well represented, despite your best, neutral efforts and even the affirmation from the majority that you are?
I didn't say most Americans would think I was a terrorist. I said the government would wipe my idea off the face of the planet.
Okay then, the current American government would call you a terrorist in your view, I stand corrected from my prior and accidental assumption.
But wouldn't your labeling as a terrorist still influence many Americans?
How would you address that? To bring more into the fold?
This government is very wary of any political system that could destabilize their power.
As is every government, or I have not seen one federal government that was otherwise in all my readings.
That is why they came down very hard on communism and socialism, and that is why they have made no secret about their hand in setting up friendly governments around the world.
Yes, from the Americas since the 18th century and most of the world since WWII, especially the ravishing the CIA did in the '50-'70s that we're still seeing everyone suffer from.
No debate.
They would take one look at my "people's democracy" and realize that if the American people decided they wanted it, it would be the end of their reign, and they would demonize it and squash it.
Maybe. But maybe even some of your favorite Democrats would say the same things I have.
That a pure Democracy is often a pipe dream because it allows any majority to override any minority.
The only thing they can't demonize is their own people - the American public. We are their audience. So my idea is to have the audience turn against them.
So, again, how do you facilitate that?
How do you even start a process where people would feel they are being equally represented?
How many Americans have to believe in this idea? I don't know. A lot. I'd want it to be 80%. It might be less. If it's not a large majority, it just won't happen. Because there's no way this can be violent, or imposed by a minority. It has to be a massive tide of opinion. How you bring that about is the HUGE ? and I am a lot more confident of becoming massively influential than I am of bringing about the catalyst for change.
But unless I am mistaken, you have constantly stated that you know how to do this better than our current form of government.
There is a huge difference between stating their should be a better way and actually providing even the ultra-basic mechanisms that handle the process of people assembling and discussing it.
That's all I'm asking, how would you assemble people to even discuss it?
I think it would have to be something that you don't believe in at all - proof that this government was behind 911 - or something that perhaps you believe in a little more - video evidence of our leaders laughing about lying to the people to take us to war or what they gained from it, or belittling the American soldiers and lives lost for their financial gain - something horrific, that makes Americans feel sick to the stomach and say "how could we have let this happen" - something so massive that it shows them they are powerless and have been completely subverted and manipulated, that would clear the way for a new system, and that's when the idea that we could all go out to the polls and make our own decisions, could be brought into play.
Wait. So what you're saying is that you only need to find something that breaks the belief in "the current system."
You need not show that it was "the current system" that caused it, but just that it happened under "the current system."
That is proof enough in your view, correct?
So what you are saying is that any time you can shake someone's belief, you can replace it with something else that must be better.
But it's only better if a majority agrees it is better, at the time you do it?
If you studied my idea, I bet *you* could come up with answers to your own questions.
I have nothing to go on, honestly.
All you've ever said is "majority" and "real minorities" being considered.
I honestly would like to know more, and I'm sincerely listening.
Ghandi was a powerful leader because he just did what he said he would do.
He didn't tell people what to do, he just did it, and people followed.
That is what made him outstanding, I why I agree with those ideals as an individual -- the same ones you put forth.
But all those ideals don't mean anything when you're trying to craft a way for people to assemble, mainly when people who don't believe in those ideals are unhappy with the processes used to try to draft a new government.
To be a leader, not just someone people follow, but someone who oversees a body, an assembly, where 100% of everyone has equal opportunity and say, requires you to often leave your own ideals behind.
It requires you to see things not always as you want to or think they should be, but what someone else thinks is important to them.
Of how it might work. Hypothetically. Staying true to the "people decide" conrnerstone of the system, but filling in some of the blanks.
Which are?
That's why I say, it will take very intelligent people to go through this and go over this and fashion it into something appealing, workable, sustainable, and practical.
So how do you define "intelligent people" who are "ideal" for this?
Are they existing leaders of other countries?
Or they the most respected PhDs in various fields?
What about people who complain the "regular people" aren't defining the process?
How do you balance all that in the assembly to form a new government?
It's a monumental task but I think it would potentially save the world.
I don't doubt it would save the world, which is why I sincerely would like to know how you plan to assemble people in way they feel better represented?
What to you promise to all the intellectuals you meet in how such an assembly could take place?
Where do we begin? Really, this is the "hard part."
Have you ever been in a non-profit organization where you were an officer or other, elected official?
And if so, have you ever been a chair, co-chair, director or something else where you had to handle the flow of public debate?
I'm not questioning you, I'm just trying to find out where you are coming from, and if you have been so involved with such.
Because if you have, then you would have a good idea what procedures you used, did and did not like, etc...
And that's the stuff I want to know more about, with all sincerity, your experiences in handling public assembly and debate.
An assembly you were a person who was entrusted to keep the flow and keep the equality going, as impartial and without your own views.
Just curious, because that's what being a leader is all about, especially for the all-important task of handling a new assembly trying to change many things from the past.
This is about as constructive as one can be, and yes, I'm asking hard questions, but you're also trying to tackle the most difficult of assignments.
Assembling people -- everyone -- into a body where they feel they have equal say, and keeping the occasional detractors from leaving it at any point.
