Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: How would you structure the government and/or economy?

Posted 10 months ago on June 22, 2013, 7:37 p.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I asked one person, then realized I wanted to ask a few more people, then decided to put it out to everyone, because I can't recall all the people I've connected with since I started.

Do you have something you could link me to that is defined without facts and opinions (concise as possible)?

Not trying to be rude. I just think we have a lot in common, and if you have plans/ideas, I would like to see them.

I would also like your thoughts and criticism on the 99% Conglomerate, and Departmental Governance & Responsible Capitalism (DG&RC), which I can explain over conversation. I'd also like to know what you think about The Venus Project, and debate that. Orchestrating these four things properly (IMO), is the best, quickest solution.

If you have a real vision, I would like to contribute what I can to it. I would also like to draw ideas from you. Think of this as an exercise in unity.

Back to Topic References: http://occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by gkendall (9) from Pine Knoll Shores, NC 10 months ago

Everyone vote for candidates having the strongest integrity and ideals, rather than deciding on an issue-by-issue basis: Scrapping about pesky little issues has become a smokescreen, concealing loss of integrity in our representation. Pick an issue and there will be division -- winners and losers. Promote integrity and WE ALL WIN.

[-] 1 points by pfolman (28) from Long Beach, CA 10 months ago

The 2-party system is a terrible platform, set up for future abuse.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

In Departmental Governance, there is an evaluation process rather than voting. There are many eligible, ready/willing/able leaders for each department, and the citizens associated with their Department (Departmental Constituency) evaluate them. I have been tying to decide how virtues/integrity/ideals could be worked into the evaluation process.

[-] 2 points by gkendall (9) from Pine Knoll Shores, NC 10 months ago

This other post http://occupywallst.org/forum/intangibles-quality-of-life/ points to http://amerrika.com/ which is saying basically the same thing. Ideals mean so much more than divisive issues. If we aren't pulling together we're pulling apart - etc. Fine and dandy, but as you point out, we could wish for some formalized proposals for the mechanics of this brilliant new paradigm for representation. Voter education alone might not be enough, because the populace is not quick to adopt new ways of thinking and doing, en masse. The establishment will be reluctant to change from within. How can we drive change, unless some viral message is the key? Seems like ideas are all we have. Intangibles are the tool. I wish we could project a tiny hologram on everyone's tabletop, like the image of Princess Leia saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope". Somebody will probably correct me on that faulty Star Wars quote but you get my point... Ideas move quicker and do more to benefit everyone, than any tangible government structure within our immediate power to create. Let's spread vision.

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

From that page: "I'm saying, debates revolving around solitary issues are pointless and what's worse, they are deadly distractions."

If we regularly evaluated leaders rather than voting them in for a fixed term, we could watch ratings and pull leaders out without delay. Departmental Governance is designed to ensure replacements are also evaluated and standing by, ready to jump into action.

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

"How can we drive change, unless some viral message is the key?"

The 99% Conglomerate can convert employees/entrepreneurs/consumers into movement supporters with minimal effort and little resistance. When it gains a little momentum, it will accelerate, and then exponentially until everyone who uses money is connected (barring the 1%).

[-] 2 points by chadesq (2) from Dallas, TX 10 months ago

I would make two rules. First one is simple: 50% campaign contribution taxes. If you (including corporations) donate to a candidate, half of your money lowers the deficit. Go ahead corporations, buy all the elections you want!

Second: asset based employment conditions. If you have over $10 mil.in assets, you are unemployable. Thankfully, since you're so rich and talented, you won't have many hurdles to starting your own business. Or you could do nothing. On the other side, if your boss has over $10mil. then you are motivated to work extra hard for a obtainable promotion! So does the person below you and so on. This causes a pipeline for social mobility. Talented workers in entry level positions get sucked up to the top and once they cross the $10mil line, voila! They have to start their own business.

Someone please consider this! I wouldn't keep saying this if I didn't believe this was the answer.

Chad Davis Chdavis6@yahoo.com

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I love the first idea! But I don't know how receptive TPTB would be to the taxing of their wealth. If the policy was implemented, they'd kill/avoid/change it in the near future. It's a very convenient system for them, and they've mastered it. Departmental Governance has no need for campaign contributions as there are no elections or parties racing for power, dividing the nation. This has many other benefits, including less waste, corruption, ignorant/deceitful representation, etc.

The second is interesting, though sounds more like something the citizens of the nation should decide on. I wouldn't call it a piece of the government/economic system framework, but more of a policy requiring democratic support. When designing a system, we can't think of everything, or no one would be able to comprehend it in reasonable time. In the current system, I would support both rules. Great ideas!

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

I just had a thought (always an iffy thing). If opinion polls -- perhaps these should be renamed "citizens evaluation forms" are used to discern people's attitudes, I believe they should also ask "why" they do or do not like something, because stupidity is not confined to politicians. If they say "I don't know why", that would have to given less weight than someone who really gives a valid, strong reason for or against.

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Interesting. But they could select any multiple choice answer, and probably wouldn't select "dunno", because they don't want to feel stupid.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

Does it have to be a multiple choice? Can't it be an open question? If someone cannot articulate the reasons they do or do not want a policy to go into effect, they should be able to say why without checking a box. We would also have to do a whole lot better job at teaching people how to think rather than what to think.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Who is going to review these millions of responses?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

See, these are the kinds of obvious things I overlook. We would need a very good questionnaire, then, prepared without slant or spin.


[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

I like that, too. I don't necessarily understand it all; as you probably know, when working out such a complex idea, you become intimately familiar with all of the details and aspects, consider other things , etc. until you reach a conclusion. When I read your description, it makes sense, but I will probably have all the questions you had in preparing it. Please go the the blog, join, and set forth the essence of your department governance concept in detail so I can easily access it. This is very exciting to me. I do appreciate your help.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I don't think it's too complicated compared to other systems. It's just new. Unfortunately some losers on this forum downvote radical ideas for whatever reason, and make ideas less attractive to new people.

Can you remind me where the blog link is?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

http://createyourownreality-parksview.blogspot.com/ The link at the bottom of the blog will take you to a summary of the actual script so far (8 whole pages!) :)
People say human nature, which is inherently greedy and power hungry, cannot change; that is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated, and we bought it hook line and sinker centuries ago. I maintain that we do not have to change our nature, we simply have to allow another aspect of our nature -- the one exemplified by spiritual teachers -- to be in charge. And it does not take an entire population to achieve that shift because once enough people are behaving differently, then responses to that behavior must also change.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

It looks like I have to use gmail to see the script? Maybe link to this thread from your user page here, as you always have access to that.

I'm also cross-referencing this with http://occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/

as you'll see at the bottom of the original post.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

It is not the actual script but a summary of it. What happened when you clicked on http://createyourownreality-parksview.blogspot.com/ ? If people would simply join the blog, it would be way easier than running around ows trying to remember who said what about which theory.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

If you are interested in using the Conglomerate, DG&RC, and the Venus Project's economic concept, the best I can do is point you to posts and converse with you about it. You have my permission. But I don't wish to sign up for anything at this time.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 months ago

No problem. This forum works. I can always put questions out here and have people put in their two cents worth. Thank you for your contributions.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 months ago

it doesn't matter at this point until we deal with the criminals at hand. seriously none of this means a fucking thing till we put these fucks in a dungeon.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I was just thinking about this after finding another mouse in my basement. Trapping the mice does not prevent new mice from coming in. You have to seal the holes. With respect to our conversation, we need to change the system, as the next mouse is a symptom of the real problem.


[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Ok, let's shut off our brains until god floats by and grants us magic powers that can render criminals defenseless. Then we can start planning.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 months ago

the only thing you should be planning is how to arrest the criminals.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Suitable punishment would be forcing them to exist as equals, no wealthier than today's homeless.

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 10 months ago

You know in a way that punishment might help them become better people, more humble, and spiritual people. It really could help them. Maybe Rich people are a kind of addict that doesn't like themselves. They have a spiritual problem.

I suppose I know enough about laxity and money to see how people in the USA that have it all so easy could.... just sort of become corrupted by the easy life. What I don't get is people in power that want to hold back assistance from everyone, want to end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.... I know people want to feel good about themselves. And I know we can guide people to be productive if there are jobs available that pay well enough. If people work, feel good about their selves, feel good about their work, ... they might want to learn and get better and contribute more.

I think few people really are addicted and want to stay home and do drugs or drink or act out in some way.

Republicans make it sound like people are happy to be addicts ... or to not accomplish anything. If you know you can accomplish things, then I think you want to work.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I agree with all that. Nearly no one would live like Jesus, giving away your last of everything aside from the flap of rag covering your nutsack. The last people to do so are those who run the big religions. All their followers are being played for fools.

With a little spare change you could buy a guy a cup of coffee, but you want to make a real difference and leave a legacy. It makes sense to grow your wealth until you can make an impact. And then there's the greedy majority...

We can try to change people, but the only thing that can be done is change the environment people grow up in. No well-known government/economic system can provide an equally satisfactory environment for this, or even a meaningful existence for many. A lot of the middle class and down feel they don't lead a meaningful life. Like you said, "If you know you can accomplish things..."

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 10 months ago

Great Response. I think you are spiritual or understand the context of the human condition. I guess most of us agree here that corporatism has no soul and treats people as objects or resources to exploit.

The solution might end up being many in the USA must migrate to a less developed country. I guess millions already have done this. Not sure what the numbers are. European thought seems better considered to recognize labor as people, citizens, and valued parts of the economy.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Thanks! I like to think my time sitting around not producing much wasn't a total waste. I prefer the company and ideas of underdogs. And I studied Organizational Behavior three times. I would say spiritual and very anti-religion.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 10 months ago

Yes, it shows. I like to compare how people act in a Christian Society ... compared to Jesus.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I remember going to bible camp as a kid. The kids were comparing penis size and hair with the guy who was supposed to be taking care of us. The next day the counsellor or whatever was trying to convince us to make the decision to be "Christian". I karate kicked a kid in the ribs for bugging me. It was a good time. Very educational.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 10 months ago

My theory is that the Council of Nicea created orthodoxy, and taught Christians to Debate Religion better that the common guy on the street. But of course you can be sincere in your debate, know your facts, and the guy will still not think you embody the religion that you are recruiting for.


I guess there was a big problem with controlling people, establishing a one Church, and controlling information. In fact it must be like today with the Internet and government trying to control electorates.

They have to repeat lies all the time no matter what to deceive the people... Public Relations, Salesmanship, Politics, Madison Avenue, Hollywood Writers, Show Boating for the Cameras while speaking in a congressional session... hiring people like Sean Hannity, O'Riley & Rush Limbaugh through Think Tanks & Foundations... Oh and Owning the MSM of course... and corrupting all workers for government & corporations by requiring loyalty to get bonuses and keep your job... of course making bigger corporations creates bigger control and bigger bribes and jobs offers.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

"There are three cities (city-states) across this planet that share striking similarities and play a crucial role in the global governmental system we have long been living under. The three city-states (along with the role they serve) is as follows:"


[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 10 months ago

no hanging them in the town square is more suitable.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4891) 10 months ago

A single rule such as preventing unnecessary misfortune could be the defining rule by which every governmental decision is evaluated through a logic based consensus. At any level of government, all decisions made would be subject to evaluation by the People for a standard period of time to find any flaws in the decision before it becomes law.

The government could be judicial in that the Congress would be composed of judges from around the country. Each municipality would be governed by 42 chief judges broken down into six groups of seven. Each year, a judge from each group would serve in rotation for the Congress. Thus, at any given time, there would be 36 chief judges governing a city and 1/6 of the nation's chief judges serving for one year in the Congress for a total of six rotations before retirement.

A merit appointed chief executive with a term not exceeding 42 years would exist at all levels of government and be subject to the governing judicial bodies.

Cities would be fixed in size being composed of a standard number of city blocks of a standard size. Each of a standard number of these city blocks would be owned by a family and could never be bought or sold, only traded with another family. Each family would be self-sufficient on its land being free to utilize it as desired and no income or property taxes would exist. Both universal health care and higher education would be among the services funded by indirect taxation which in itself would have a legally set limit in times of peace and an increased limit in times of war.

Upon completion of higher education or before, all citizens would serve two years in the military, two years in the local law enforcement, and two years in other local civil service jobs after which they would serve in the county organized national guard. In times of peace, active military membership would never be allowed to be greater than 40% of the national guard.


[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

A lot of this I would leave to the democracy to decide, in other words, how people live their lives and all that affects them should be decided by them. But you know this would be a bad system. The way closest to this is representation, but you know this doesn't meet the needs of democracy.

We need to put our minds together to come up with a form of representation, with our technology at hand, that best matches the ideals of democracy. These are facts, if I'm not mistaken:

  1. We can't have all people involved in decision-making.
  2. No one can be involved in every decision.

Now forgive me for the names I chose for the entities/actors of Departmental Governance (DG). I'm not well educated, but they do the trick for me.

Decisions go down in the Legislative Court. The Leadership of a Department (say the Natural Resources Department), has a problem it needs to resolve, so the announcement is made to the Departmental Constituency. It's probable that the Constituency brought this up for legislation, so they would have been aware of it already if they were paying attention... this is THEIR Department. They don't care about the other Departments, and the Constituencies of the other Departments are not involved - they have their own matters to attend to.

As a human, I can associate with none or many Departments. I can be in the Department Constituency, or I can be an activist. Political Parties become Activist Opposition Parties in DG, which are groups of concerned citizens, powerful in influencing Departmental Leaderships. Greenpeace might become a Political Party in DG.

So, in Legislative Court sits the Department Leadership, the Opposition, and a monitor displaying the electronic weigh-in from Constituency. The only input coming from the citizens (Constituency), is the opinion rating. They can't say "DON'T DO IT!", but their opinion will tell the Leaders if they will still be Leaders tomorrow.

In my opinion, you can't get more democratic than that. Two other points tie it together from a thousand-foot view: there are up to three rounds per case/issue, and a branch of the Justice Department is involved in every legislative session held by every Department. Three special Judges conclude case decisions, if a conclusion can not be reached between the Department Leadership and the Opposition by round three.

More technical rules apply as you zoom closer in. One last thing to understand the DG system for now: Only Justice and the Economics Department have really special, interdepartmental activity (generally, Departments are autonomous silos of independent governance). Justice has a branch involved in all decision-making government-wide to objectively facilitate resolutions when no other options exist. Economics is involved in distribution of resources (financial resources during the "money" phase of our existence) to Departments. The central bank is a branch of Economics, and the Department has other special roles as well. (If you think that's a problem, consider that any citizen in the nation can join or start an Economics Department Political Opposition Party. Anyone can be employed by Economics and be extremely influential as a member of the Constituency or even the Leadership.)

Oh, and Departments will be able to guarantee any amount of employment and fair compensation to anyone with any level of skill. What is a fair wage? That's for the people to decide.

[-] 2 points by pfolman (28) from Long Beach, CA 10 months ago

We can't have all people involved in decision-making. No one can be involved in every decision.

But we have the technology to do so. People can be involved by simply clicking a button on issues on a monthly basis, whatever would be asked they could give their input. The statistical majority will have the say !

Might that work?

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

It might. I wouldn't want laymen contributing to important issues that affect things I know a lot about.

I would be happy to stay out of important issues affecting me if I have little understanding, knowing that good people with the background knowledge (up on current events, understand the science, etc), are there.

It not so much that a person can't use their whole life influencing every decision... but it's very irresponsible to allow that to happen.

Why pollute decision-making with uninformed opinion? Seems really backwards to me.

The Legislative Courts, I figure, would be a structure that can resume after a catastrophic failure. For example, if all computers and mobile devices stop working, people would know where to go to resume.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4891) 10 months ago

All people can be involved in decision making.

Everyone can be involved in every decision to affect them.

By "All people" and "Everyone" I mean mentally coherent adults. If the decision making process is vote dependent, your statements hold true but if the decision making process is logic dependent, requiring sufficient evidence for objecting to decisions determined by a consensus of professional thinkers (i.e. judges), then all people can be involved.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 months ago

Who defines who is "mentally coherent"? Who gets defined as a "professional thinker"?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

Response part 2:

There are many Departments (as many as needed to cover all aspects of governance), and basically they are structured the same. So we can understand all Departments by talking about one.

Here are some of the actor/thinkers of DG:

  • Departmental Leaders: Individuals who have chosen a path of political leadership in their Department. They range from people who just started practicing (half of each workday paid, dedicated to Leadership "training"), to the highest Leadership position (decision-makers of the Legislative Court).

  • Departmental Constituency: The Evaluators of a Department. They do not interfere with or influence other Departments (a few exceptions exist). They are employees of the public sector, and every Department guarantees a fair-paid position to anyone capable of working.

  • Political Parties (Activist Opposition): Groups of united, concerned citizens actively fighting for what they believe is right. All anyone needs is time to attend meetings and a will to fight for justice.

These three entities are responsible for the state of the nation. Every single person has the freedom to be as influential as anyone else in the system. You could spend your whole day being as involved as possible in every decision, evaluating as many Leaders as there are, in as many Departments as you can follow. But there are only 24 hours in a day.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

In Departmental Governance, it's anyone who can keep their job and can comprehend the current events surrounding their Department(s). If they have the will and ability to participate in influencing the governance of their Department, they are encouraged to do so. But if they are incapable of keeping their association with the Department, too irresponsible to be at work on time, read the news, maintain their membership with a Political Party (AKA Activist Opposition Party), evaluate their Departmental Leadership, then they simply won't. You don't have to tell them they can't participate, because they don't want to anyway.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4891) 10 months ago

Defining mental coherence is a matter of the medical profession. If a person shows up to a public evaluation of the decision-making process raising incoherent objections while appearing to be either drunk or high, their condition needs to be determined before applying any exclusionary measures.

"(i.e. judges)" was already defined as the professional thinkers.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 months ago

Simply saying "judges" isn't much of a definition. Many people would like to define themselves as "professional thinkers". That would include Fascist, Nazis, and many other ideologies that might not fit your criteria or mine.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4891) 10 months ago

It doesn't matter what many people would like to define themselves as since the subject was about the clarification of what I had meant. My only reason for even using the term "professional thinkers" instead of just saying "judges" was merely to relate it in a way that the person I was replying seems to share a common understanding of the matter with me.

[-] 1 points by pfolman (28) from Long Beach, CA 10 months ago

Also, the US is not a Republican Democracy any longer; it has moved into Plutocracy.

[-] 0 points by Nevada10 (1) 10 months ago

Republican Democracy = Oxymoron. You mean't a Representative Republic.

[-] 1 points by pfolman (28) from Long Beach, CA 10 months ago

Germany is a Democratic Republic, that's why I always mess it up :-)

[-] 1 points by pfolman (28) from Long Beach, CA 10 months ago

Sorry, I am German. Yes, a Representative Republic.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

These names get confusing for sure. I think when I was in school, my teacher called canada a democratic socialism. I doubt anyone understood that. It's a garbage bullshit system regardless (not even close to democracy), like the education they fed me.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 10 months ago

With regard to the economy - it still sucks. Why?

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and they are being taxed to death. More focus is being placed on "multi-millin dollar" companies rather then small businesses.

The present administration hasn't a clue as to what's going on with this government for if it did we wouldn't be going from one crisis to another.

Secondly the government is too big. I say this because if it wasn't the current administrations answers to the present government screw ups wouldn't be "The oval office didn't know a thing about it" or "lets get to the bottom of this so and make corrections so it won't happen again". How many times have you heard that line.

We need to stop looking at this country from a "have/have not" perspective and focus on what the problems are and solve them.

Being divided by being a republican/democrat/independent is exactly what our politicians want. They want us to be continually divided - remember the old saying "divide and conquer".

Well that's exactly why this country is in the situation it's in today. What needs to be done is we as citizens need to register as "Americans" instead of Republican/Democratic/Independent.

Then those in charge won't have a clue as to who's for them and who's against them when it comes to people who vote.

So we need to pull together instead of being pulled apart by this government and in return if we do that we can start down the path to a better government for the people, not for the politicians.

You get the right people in office and they will do the right thing - you get the wrong people in office and all their concerned about is getting re-elected by knowing just how big their voting base is. Voting as an "American" will take this power away from them.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 10 months ago

I'll try to respond in order.

Money is the poison, the reason the economy sucks.

The administration knows that they just do what they're told and dance on strings. Everything is the way it is for a reason. It's a giant board game.

Politicians are always full of excuses. Everything is a lie and broken promises. There was never intention to do good, unless it's a PR or popularity stunt.

The only problems that need solving are root problems. Things like constitutional rights and freedoms, fracking, and unnecessary war, are actually just symptoms. Activists from the past who won great victories, saving the environment 30 years ago, (also FDR's taxation of the wealthy), and whatnot, they'll tell you that those same battles are being fought again. Americans were given, in and by the constitution, the right and encouragement to scrap it and make a new one when necessary.

Divide and conquer is their strategy for not just national, but global domination. Like I said, it's a board game. We need a system that has no use for these political parties and elections.

We need the power to democratically remove leaders from power without delay when necessary.

"You get the right people in office and they will do the right thing"... well, this is how it works: Elite: "We will put you in power if you do our bidding, and we will make you and your family for generations to come exceedingly wealthy. If you are in power and ignore us, we'll just kill you and destroy everything you care about." Politician: "I'm outa here!" or "Sounds good, where do I sign?" Then elections come and since both sides signed up for the wealth, either puppet will do. The situational factors at the time will determine which piece slides into checkmate.