Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Omnistic Solutions to world political and economic issues

Posted 2 years ago on April 3, 2012, 10:26 p.m. EST by Philosopher215 (4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

After having handed out a number of introductions leading into The Omnist Theory and Manifesto and seeing the response. I have come to the conclusion that very few people will actually bother to read any of it. Q sad face. It would appear that since those of both sides feel that they each have a “pretty good bead on things”, I.E. what is happening that is wrong in the world, all they really care to hear about is what we can DO about it all.

The sad truth is that those on the Right and Left have a decent picture of the problem… but only when combined can we well see the fullness of the problems we face. After all, both sides feel that the other is part of the problem and while each can see clearly how the other is part of the problem… few can see how their side is part of the problem. But regardless of my desires to show how the fallowing solutions really do solve the actual problems we face… I will simply present them as stand alone exurbs from The Manifesto.

The points that precede these solution proposals are…

  1. “The Mortal Disease” in world politics and economics, is the problem of one faction gaining political control and imposing a kind of tyranny over the minority factions via the power of law and / or economics. The Mortal Disease currently manifests in 2 ways. Big Business + Government imposing an economic tyranny upon The People. And certain factions of The People gaining political power and imposing a kind of tyranny on yet other factions. Our governmental system was specifically designed to help deal with the mortal disease problem between differing factions of The People… but never a Big Business + Government relationship. I.E. the biggest problem we face is Big Business + Government.

  2. Law is an ineffective regulator to those with the power to either get around the law, or worse, hijack it’s power to their own ends. I.E. Law can be used effectively to enforce will on The People, but not Big Business in our current system. Therefore, any attempt to use the power of governmental regulation and law to solve the problem of Big Business, most likely will end with giving Government yet more power over economics, which will inevitably be hijacked by Big Business towards it’s own ends.

Translation: If we leave economics alone to do as it pleases bad things will happen. If we seek to impose governmental regulation and control via the power of Law on economics, businesses powerful enough to bribe and bed politicians, will inevitable gain access to that power… and makes thing far worse. It is a “damned if you do damned if you don’t” scenario currently.

  1. We are all, on some level, currently aware of the futility of the problem we face. The question is, “what can we do about it”? We can’t well rely on men to regulate men as men can be bribed and corrupted. But neither can we just let economics run totally unregulated. So how does one find a way to regulate economics in a far less corruptible fashion?

The fallowing are the current ideas as exurbed from The Omnist Manifesto. The only thing not well covered by this intro is how competition forces business to give a fair wage and fair price… and as such businesses primary concern in politics is getting around this pesky little problem that hampers their profit margins (at our expense naturally). The theory wonders at using this “law of economics” that forces fairness in economics, between employee and employer, to force, to a far greater degree, fairness in economics… rather than actual law and governmental regulation which can be so easily corrupted.

As such the first proposal is in fact simply to use the power of governmental to impose and maintain a fierce state of competition in economics. Past that, Competition has it’s failings, and along with the failings of Law, they are listed in my Manifesto. Where Competition fails Law has a good chance of working, where Law fails Competition has a good chance of working.

Simply put, while one cannot force business via law to give a fair wage and sales price (as law can be corrupted… or in it’s effectiveness destroy the economy) Competition can.

That being said, we still need effective enforcement of regulation on some things in economics and politics. As such the fallowing proposals were formed.

6 Comments

6 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Philosopher215 (4) 2 years ago

WARNING, this system shows every sign of being brutally effective, limited purposeful usage is woefully advised.

Greed Checking Greed (Sentinel) System Firstly, before someone talks about how best to enforce a law it is best to establish the laws one is trying to enforce, mainly to establish the goodness and healthiness of said laws. In our case the laws we are considering for “greed checking greed” enforcement are human rights, labor rights, civic rights, environmental law, and proper business rights (to protect business from People + Gov. and competitors from Business + Gov.). As an observational example of just how important theses few laws are and just how few laws are truly needed for good, healthy economic regulation, observe with me that whenever you or people in general have a complaint about a business practice… 90% of the time, less I am mistaken, it falls into the category of either human rights, labor rights, civic rights, environmental concerns, or business rights violations as previously stated. That is most likely most of the fight right there… boom, done with good enforcement. Most of the rest of all this is simply keeping it this way and just that simple. Naturally we have to establish if all that these laws entail are actually healthy for economics; for achieving that “ever increasing prosperity, fairly, mutually, simultaneously, for both People and Business”… and edit accordingly; but the simple fact is that we already have good economic laws both locally and internationally in place already. What we woefully lack is effective enforcement of those laws. The “greed checking greed” (sentinel) system is a purposed enforcement solution that has been taken from the successes of Alexander Hamilton’s “ambition checking ambition” in politics from Federalist Paper #51. Simply put, the “greed checking greed” (sentinel) system suggests that we implement some kind of monetary (money) reward, incentive, for people to expose businesses braking the law. Currently we appear to be relying on the individuals morality and offer no compensation for the loss of either their job, a lengthy costly trial, and / or a smear campaign. It would be more effective to appeal to the individuals self interest, to their greed and gain, then to their morality and conviction, particularly when bidding them to be our sentinels against self interest, greed and gain. This monetary incentive should come at the expense of the business being exposed, as to avoid it coming from the tax payers. Also the incentive would have to be great enough to make people want to come forward but not so large that it makes people want to lie. This is the biggest “bug” we are currently working on, but as you can see we have plenty of options to fix this. The “greed checking greed” systems purpose is to turn every employee, competitor, investigator, business partner, investor, friend and enemy into a potential law enforcement investigator making it, hopefully, impossibly difficult for any business to defy the law profitably. This should make business want to fallow the law of their own volition and a little paranoid about doing so. Again this system shows every sign of being brutally effective and so one must be very careful how it is employed and on what. It will be a design of both the business rights, economic constitution, and checks and balances systems to ensure proper execution of “greed checking greed” in a healthy economic manner. A check on both the law and the enforcement as one can easily imagine how fast using this system on to many laws or even the wrong laws would put a nations economy into the ground.

[-] 0 points by rchb (0) 2 years ago

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CFLRH8T

Check out my Occupy Wall Street survey. The data collected will be used for my graduate studies.

[-] 0 points by Philosopher215 (4) 2 years ago

Will of The People Law Enforcement System Also up for consideration in addition to the greed checking greed system is a proposal to revamp the judicial law enforcement system to the purpose of putting the power of law enforcement firmly in the hands of The People. Looked at system wise achieving this is rather important to maintaining a “People’s Will” government. Governmental power and control mainly comes from it’s power to write and, more importantly, enforce law. Thus to put the power of law enforcement firmly in the hands of The People is to put the power of government firmly in the hands of The People to a large extent. Imagine if a system of law enforcement put firmly in the hands of the citizenry was workingly possible and in effect. In theory one’s government, one’s law and policy making body, could be corrupt in the extreme, working for God knows who towards God only knows what… it wouldn’t matter how corrupt one’s government is, as the power to enforce and execute those laws and policies is still firmly in the hands of The People. Thus the laws that are enforced are “of the will of The People”, even if one’s government no longer is of the people and for the people. This should put the power of government well back in the hands of The People and provide another, far more effective, way of voting and engaging in government for a nations citizenry. This is what we are looking to do and why. Our current thoughts on the subject are as fallows as an example of what we are talking about and proposing. We are considering putting supreme law enforcement power in the hands of the jury as well as maintaining with only a few changes the “law of the land / constitution” checks and balances system currently used in America. We are considering expanding the jury size considerably, to 24 or more, giving better pay for jury duty, but not to much, and instituting a “right to a speedy trial” system that sees a jury deciding if a trail should be swift or if it is concerning enough to warrant a longer trial. This one is to get us away from those decade long trials that only hurt the “little guy” and allow big business and big government to often win by default. Simply put, let the jury decide if the trial warrants being long or swift. As we are considering putting supreme power of enforcement and punishment in the hands of a jury of citizenry we are thinking it would be prudent to put some kind of check upon such power. As a way of doing this we are considering that the judges roll in a trial is to assign his own verdict, based on more traditional methods, after the jury assigns their’s. The jury must then obtain a 75% majority to override the judges decision, if they see fit to do so. In theory this should force the jury to be far more lenient and less whimsical in their verdict than the traditional 51% majority system. As well as being a far better system for “majority will” of The People and hung juries would be far less common. Appeals, naturally, would be made to another preliminary judgment jury same as it is done to determine if a trial should be swift or time and resource consuming. Lastly, a request to a jury composed from other states can be made as to avoid any extremely detrimental stereotypes (in fact we are considering making this a right… or more part of the appeal process… I.E. appeals can be made to a representative jury composed of members from all states). As per the overall system… such a system of law enforcement would provide a great check on the goodness and healthiness of any law passed by Government as the system of enforcement would be more based on purpose of law rather than letter of the law and any such negative laws would most likely be relegated to a swift trial where they would be effectively voided by The People (in other words all those little “deal” and “in bed” laws that help certain businesses and groups from People + Gov. and Business + Gov. would be shot down rather quickly).

[-] 0 points by Philosopher215 (4) 2 years ago

A recent proposal not in the Manifesto)

A new proposal to our eyes, that must be very old by now, is to increase the number of representatives in government. There are arguable a number of serious problem when ones political system was designed with 50,000 people per representative (congress, house, president)… and that figure jumps to over 2 million. Voice decreases, power of officials increases… and it is all very much non-democratic.

I must admit, I saw as many problems with doing this as I saw advantages at first, namely the costs… but the one thing that makes me think this solution has some serious validity to it is when someone said “think about how much harder it would be to corrupt?”.

Our government system was designed to “check ambition with ambition”, as Alexander Hamilton put it. The great difficulty in being a corrupt politician is that there are always other politicians looking to sell you out as corrupt so that they can take your place. More representatives would greatly help exacerbate this problem for corrupt politicians.

Also, naturally, men have a base “cost” for being bribed. As the old saying goes “they can only hang you once”. If it currently costs 2 million to bride a government senator, for example, and you divided his power up into 50 (going extreme here) representatives, then the odds are good that the cost to bride the U.S. Government to gain access to that equivalent power is now around 50 million… not to mention that a lot more people are looking to sell out and replace those who take that bribe.

This makes bribing government far less “economical” for Big Business and foreign governments. Since a business will not bribe unless they can gain financially by doing so, such a proposal would help clear out many of our current corrupt problems… leaving us with a just a relative few big ones.

This fact ALONE… might very well make up for all the negatives such a proposal has in the same manor that while having a citizenry judicial / law enforcement system has it’s down sides… the advantages would far out-way any negatives.

Full Omnist Manifesto at http://theomnist.com/page1.php Full Omnist Theory at http://theomnist.com/page8.php

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Omnist/171214346314898

This is the Omnist Facebook

I must admit that the new Facebook is garbage and I am not liking it. Turned my good page into... this.

:(

[-] 1 points by Philosopher215 (4) 2 years ago

Ok... I am calling WTH on this post. I can't get it to not run for a mile. Damn things going Forest Gump on me.

[-] 0 points by rchb (0) 2 years ago

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CFLRH8T

Please follow the link to my survey on Occupy Wall Street. The data collected will be used for my graduate studies.