Ideal Democracy
In an effort to rescue democracy, Robly E. George outlines a new, "fundamentally just" political party, building and promoting a platform run "democratically by all participants."
The "Democratic Socieoeconmic Platform" shifts towards an opening of mindsets, allowing party preferences to be created, discussed, and earned, rather than simply followed. George's "Transformational Politics" implement active "survivability, sustainability, and quality-of-life measures and realities," arguing that contemporary politics "[quibble] over Change."
Through planned "economic incentives" such as Universal Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) and Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW), the new Democratic Platform would provide funding to address global challenges such as education, budget deficits, bureaucracy, resources and pollution, and the "General Welfare of All Citizens."
While the platform is ambitious and attractive, its flavorful intellect suggests that average thinkers may have a harder time adjusting to such idealized reform.
George's book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System may be purchased here.
Tweet- 10-21-08
- Stephen Hershey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
average thinkers
I don't think getting average thinkers to adjust to such an idealized reform is going to be the problem, it seems like the only time a party platform like this is going to get into power is once absolutely everyone is committed to the path of self-realization/discovery/freedom, and building communities based on the new trust that arises out of that spirituality, in which case the reform would be a natural progression of the mind being in balance with the heart on a global level; but that seems a long ways away, as the divide between minds grows ever wider.
The "average thinker" inside all of us will have to transform itself before we can create a sustainable form of government for ourselves. Having said that, this platform, in the least; seems like a strong gesture in the right direction!
I'm no Republican, but. . .
Yeah that sounds nice and all bleeding-heart, but it's basically a socialist system which means there is complete control from the top, am I right? That's the general impression I got from skimming that document. It seemed fluffy with some substance only. Am I wrong?
I personally understand that the way into the future is a de-centralized, bottom-up structure that utilizes the wonders discovered in our top-down phase of humanity such as technology and science. We need everyday people to become leaders and organizers in their own right and for an Open Source Society where we all chip in to create a new culture.
"While the platform is ambitious and attractive, its flavorful intellect suggests that average thinkers may have a harder time adjusting to such idealized reform."
I think that statement is actually pretty bogus as it effectively frames any opposing view as coming from someone who is just an "average thinker". So basically, it also implies that if one is a true intellect, they will either come to these views on their own, or will agree with them whole-heartedly when they are presented with them!
Black Light in the Attic Podcast w/Serpicody & Sancho
http://blacklightattic.podomatic.com
opposing view
It does imply that doesn't it, but i guess that issue would arise out of your platform as well. Even with a "bottom-up" structure would there not be opposing views? I guess the problem here is labeling those opposing views as "average thinkers"
Yeah, you know that's
Yeah, you know that's what actually spurred me to comment was the average thinker line. Not because I was personally offended, but because it pre-supposed limitations to the material that set of bells and whistles in my head that this was propagandist material. By that I don't mean there are nefarious intentions behind the post, but rather that is frames itself as an ultimate truth rather than a topic open to opposing views and dialogue.
And yes in the bottom-up model there is plenty of room for opposing views, in fact that will be the bread and butter so long as we have effective group/community/societal decision-making processes such as Wisdom Councils.
Black Light in the Attic Podcast w/Serpicody & Sancho
http://blacklightattic.podomatic.com
bread and butter
Yea man, I didn't want to imply you were personally offended either. In the last sentences of the article, it really does frame itself as superior intelligence.
And as long as those Councils don't label and divide opposing views, all would be heard and adhered to appropriately and fairly.
What I wonder is, by the time we can form these stable, community-trust based councils, will there be a need to have different parties? and much less party campaigns? It seems there being a need to vote at all indicates the process is flawed. As I said before, there is the need of a universal truth-understanding, globally, before these effective, community councils could exist and co-exist. I don't mean everyone has to be beaten into the same reality tunnel, I mean all humans would have to agree on the fundamental basic outline of our purpose as humans existing together, trying to evolve efficiently. From there, the details about how any nation, or; group of people, at any certain point of the world, would live together, would be worked out by that group of people.
bread and butter baby!
responding
I suppose what I meant by "average thinkers" were those who simply tend to question their lives, or their government, less than others. It is an idealized platform, which is why I feel the less active members of our society would be challenged to agree with it.
There's no intellectual handicap in being an average thinker. Maybe it's not politically correct, but its true that some think more than others. A full democratic reform would have to incorporate and appeal to the heavy thinkers, the average thinkers, the moderate thinkers, the spiritual thinkers, the non-thinkers, etc. Incorporate everybody.
If a platform like this were to take off, it would require every member's devout participation, which is not something that could be fulfilled by watching the evening news every day. Likewise, whatever the form is of human transformation that will take place, it will be required to affect everyone, as we are all members of the human race.
There are quite a few members of society who are moderately happy with the way things are, who might not encourage such vast change. What about them, are they to be left in the dust? Their realities, too, are valid, and would have to be included in a legitimized, democratic reform. For future versions of the "Democratic Socioeconmic Platform," this would be the challenge.
"You have tasted death now," said the Old Man. "Is it good?"
"It is good," Mossy replied. "It is better than life."
"No... only more life."
Some good ideas, but...
First, what will happen when the owner/CEO of a company is getting close to maximum wealth? I can't think of the most probable scenario. If the person enjoys their job, they may keep it, and lower their own wage to maintain equilibrium. That, of course, is ideal for the economy. From what I've learned about the people who obtain these positions, I can say that many are not that kind. The worst case would involve liquidating the company. That would put many people out of jobs and increase the unemployment as if a 'job' bubble popped.
Second, a "universal guaranteed personal income" is a suggestion that a person may not need to produce anything of value in order to receive a paycheck. This is not good. Where would the money be coming from to pay the people who don't work (either by choice or inability to).
Third, redistribution of wealth can not be done quickly. The people who hold a large amount of money are in a mean-spirited way helping fight inflation. If the money that they are unable to spend goes to people who plan on spending it, the value of the currency will drop quickly. The value of a dollar (for reference sake, I apologize for anyone not in the US) is based on market forces. If the dollar amount in circulation doubles, then buying doubles, and what is being bought drops in supply and raises in demand. The result would be that the dollars value could end up being worth half as much as it was previously.
I'm going to stick with three points, because three is a decent number, and these are the biggest problems I could foresee. These problems are not unavoidable, but do demand a slow transition if the new system should ever succeed.