Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Constitution of direct democracy

Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 6, 2012, 12:02 p.m. EST by Maria1211 (4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here is thesis of Constitution of New Society based on principle of direct execution of power (see the link below):

Presented New Society Model does not fight against corruption, speculative profits, violation of human rights, abuse of power, etc. It EXCLUDES them.

New Society Model/Constitution:

I. is based on principles of:

(a) clear, transparent and rational goal setting;

(b) direct, immediate execution of power by each member of society;

(c) unity/oneness/integrity;

(d) personal, full and direct responsibility; and

(e) self-performance;

II. consists of 14 Fundamental Principles that provide for:

(a) basis on which the society's self-management is founded (see above);

(b) concrete, foundational goals of society;

(c) material basis for achievement of established goals;

(d) rules of procedure for society’s self-management and development;

III. provides for formation of rational and most efficient society, ever possible;

IV. is known as "direct [or real] democracy".

It can be implemented in any society already today - through referendum. Transition from Existing System to New Society Model management can be completed within 4 years after its adoption at referendum.




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago
[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 11 years ago

See The Common Law Republic


[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 11 years ago

Of course, what you advocate is basically 'mob rule', a system in which the underclasses can more efficiently transfer wealth from the productive members of the society to the non-productive.

The problem, as always, is the middle class. There is no incentive for relatively comfortable people to give up their position in our society to assist the underclass in their quest for wealth transfer from the producers. Frankly, the middle class sees itself as targets of the underclass and actively fights to maintain the status quo.

The only thing that will ever make your dreams come true is the destruction of the middle class. Obama has been more successful in this destruction than any figure in our history. He is singlehandedly bringing the middle class to it's knees, millions upon millions of good jobs have disappeared forever through regulation from the EPA, high energy costs and many other methods during his presidency.

Every job lost creates another unhappy prospect for your plans, another welfare recipient who will vote for whoever keeps the cash spigot on full blast.

What you propose will of course never happen, the same power structure we have right now will continue in place but it will be even safer because every day they are creating more dependents who will vote to keep them in power.

So, yeah, basically, vote for Obama, sign up for your free cash and quit pretending you matter.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 11 years ago

Your first two paragraphs could be a quotation directly from Marx, but the remainder of your comment is rubbish.

Supply-side economics has destroyed the middle class, and recent implementation of those policies began under Ronnie the popular. As a matter of fact real wages for the lowest-income earners have decreased, since 1980, and real wages for the middle class have stagnated. Obama has only continued the miserable economic tradition sold to the American public by Ronnie.

You obviously know nothing about welfare, except what some right-wing hacks have lied about. You should study the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" signed into law by Bill Clinton. Here's a link: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/

After you study the act and the devastating results to lowest-income workers, come back and spread more propaganda about all the freeloaders getting rich at your expense.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 11 years ago

Wages have decreased and stagnated relative to what? You have to be a complete idiot to post in public that wages haven't increased since 1980. Has buying power decreased due to inflation, union demands, regulations and increased taxes? Why, yes it has.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Wages, even for educated persons has risen little when inflation is considered. Please check out what is really happening economics. In a nutshell, productivity continues to rise while the benefit from that increase goes overwhelmingly to the 1%.

Inflation masks the lack of real wage growth. Since unions began to decline in the 60's, real wages stopped increasing for most. Union membership is only 12.5% now compared to 35% back in the 50's.





[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 11 years ago

You do read? I wrote "real wages." I assumed that you knew what real wages were. Obviously, I was wrong, but ignorance is curable. Your stupidity is not.

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 11 years ago

I can't decide if your lack of understanding of economics is ignorance or stupidity. Normally, I would chalk it up to ignorance but considering your obvious belief in far left uncorns, windmills, moonbeams, sunshine and lollipops let's just get out there, you're stupid. :)

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

If you can afford a yacht, a "rising tide lifts all boats"; if you're middle class, you're apt to find the boat is leaking, and your bucket's got a hole it; the poor have no boats and so they beg a lifesaver. The problem I think with all macroeconomic theory, whether centered left or right, is that it seeks balance political will and desire with a universal national prosperity, with too little consideration of externality.