A proper big society



Mike Anderson wrote a new note: 4 branch.

20 August 2014 at 22:02 · 

The Nation of United States was a promise, and agreement, a contract that we all have agreed to, with some basic premises about who is responsible for what. We the people were promised that we would be self governing.
The mechanics of providing that self governance is outlined in our constitution.
The question to be asked and answered is whether those mechanics are still, (if ever) adequate to fulfill our promise to ourselves.
If the mechanics of the system that we use is inadequate then it must be fixed!
Electing new people will never fix the system, there is no election currently being considered that tackles the inadequacies of our systems. None.
We see our elected officials behaving as rulers, making laws that benefit them and their interests, while explaining that we, the common people cannot object, because they have information that we don’t. They have secrets. They act on secret information. They have become de facto rulers.
Being ruled by secret tribunals was never part of the promise, the agreement we accepted as our constitution.
Unlike previous victims of predatory rulers acting in secret, we have a precedent of legal authority to remove ourselves from an oppressive or inadequate system, and to install a better one.
To remove the current system, without having another installed is to be an anarchy, and invite a dictatorship. With that said, the next question becomes, how shall we design a new system of mechanics that is adequate, and that retains the promise of liberty, justice and responsible self governance that is the foundation cornerstone of this nation?
We have seen many attempts at differing systems in history, however the conditions in which they were designed were always much the same, communication was always limited to the speed of a horse.
Technology has advanced such that in a great majority of the earth, communication is nearly instantaneous. That simple, single fact changes the entire field of possibilities.
Why are we reliant on a system designed to operate in a time that communication was transported by horse??

We now have the opportunity, for the first time in human history to design a system of mechanics that allow self governance of the people, by the people, WITHOUT “rulers” deciding our fates.

I propose a system that uses technology to place the authority and responsibility to enact law directly into the hands of the people.
We need an executive branch, we need a judicial branch and yes we need a congressional branch, however in addition we need a public branch of government.

We remove the authority to enact law from Congress. Congress would be tasked with writing law by the executive branch, but have no power to enact law.
Congress crafts potential solutions, then passes those to the Judicial branch.
Judicial branch reviews the proposed laws for legality. Does the proposed law meet tests of constitutionality? This is done BEFORE enactment!
If the law is bad, legally, it is sent back to congress with suggestions for a fix.
If it is good, legally, then Judicial passes it to executive, which reviews it for plausibility. Is the law proposed likely to solve the problem?? Is the law going to fall within current policy? Is the law accurate in the definition of the problem and are the costs and methods of payments accurate?
Once a proposed solution passes the 3 branches, it then is presented to the public branch, which is the ONLY branch authorized enact law. Once the public has voted to enact a law, the executive then signs it as law.

Who is the public branch? How can that be organized?
We are the public branch. The entire citizen population.
We claim and hold the sole authority and responsibility for our self governance. (was that not the original promise??)
Each person may choose a representative, or we may choose to vote on each law ourselves.
Note that a representative is not elected, a rep is chosen by consent and at will. A Rep controls only the number of votes that individuals assign, and that assignment can be changed at will, by individuals. As long as a Rep is voting in line with an individuals choices, then the individual, by consent abdicates authority, and is freed to go about his business without undue concern about the absolute details of the laws being passed. 
However that abdication by consent may be rescinded at any time, and that full authority can be held and exerted by an individual at any time, and for any reason.
For every election, a rep will publish the vote they will cast for the pool of votes they control. That publishment will occur some reasonable time prior to the election. Any citizen can then, prior to the election, remove their vote from that rep. The citizen is then responsible for their vote, casting it, or not as they wish. Note that the goal here is to empower the individual with choices of assuming full control of the right to vote, or allowing another to control that vote, without any loss of control of that choice.
The public branch cannot, will not ever be tasked with crafting of laws, that is the sole responsibility and authority of Congress. Elected to represent the best minds to craft the best solutions.
The Judicial branch goes to work. They no longer get to cherry pick the work they do. EVERY law will be reviewed and will be judged legal before enactment. There will be no more misery foisted on the public by rulers passing bad law, illegal law, that must be fought back into the courts. At great public expense and pain, division and anger, we the people have been forced to live and work under illegal law, until a court could be convinced to judge the work of lawmakers. NO MORE. 
We understand that there is some reluctance to trust the public with the role of self governance. However the mechanics of the system outlined here protect the public from the consequences of “mob action”. As well as protects the public from the corruption that has corroded our previous mechanics. The salient point here is that our Declaration of Independence, is quite specific in that we agreed on the legal argument of self governance. The people of this nation have the legal authority to make the decisions of governance.
If there is a successful argument that the people of this nation cannot be trusted with the role of self rule, then we have negated the legal authority of this nation to exist.

I accept the risk of the freedom of others, because I expect to enjoy the benefits of my own freedom.
If we reject this premise, the legal argument that we have the right of self governance cannot be supported.
Our Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights clearly define the lines of responsibility and authority.
Laws which criminalize behavior that do not cause actual injury to another, are way outside the line of authority we have established.
Our current system is a rogue state, operating as a ruler class.



You and 55 others like this.

James K. Burk

Mike, the problem is at least twofokl. The first problem is that there are a series of logjams built into the system which will slow it even more, rather than speed the change. It also requires an intelligent and aware public, and that’s not going to happen. Not now, and probably, not ever.

Like · 3 · More · 20 December 2014

James K. Burk

Sorry, meant twofold.

Like · More · 20 December 2014

Mike Anderson

Yes, I understand. I agree, that my proposed system does require that any decisions made, be seriously considered, rather than snap reflex decisions. Most historians agree that mistakes are most common, when snap decisions are made. I think I prefer a system that requires serious consideration.
As for the system requiring an aware and intelligent public, it does not.
The consequences of the decisions made, for good or bad, will be borne by the public. If a bad decision is made, it will affect the ones who made that decision, and they will have an immediate opportunity to change it, without waiting for those “politics” to get sorted out first.
I detect a shade of attitude that perhaps the public is too stupid to be self governing.
Once again, I caution that that argument leads us to the conclusion that we deserve serfdom under a king, not self governance.

Edited · Unlike · 13 · More · 20 December 2014

Mike Anderson

I am posting a copy of Seans comment so that I can reply here.
Sean Cleary OK, I have more closely read your proposal. 
Bought: any billion dollar corp can buy enough of the judges and the legislature to ensure passage of rules for themselves. 
Boutht: any changes in the constitution will be done in front of such corporations and multinationals. Any constitutional convention might as well be a meeting of corporations to divvy up the US.
Hacked: any electronic means of voting can be overcome. Beyond 4Chan and 
Anomious, there are foriegn governmants that would love to stuks-worm 
their way to the heart of US policy.
I will create a group of voters that are huge. Should you try to 
verify, it will give itself credentials and references. Vote the Chicago
Hacked: The people can be controlled by fear, and have been. 
well see above. Beyond the corporations, the politcal interests can 
also fund big scary things that will change how the sheeple flee. 

It can be done, and has been done and will be done.

Like · 5 · More · 20 December 2014

Mike Anderson

I don’t think that any corporation could buy enough of the public to assure an outcome, regardless of bought judges and legislature.
For instance a company might enjoy being able to dump toxic waste, and consider “buying” some lawmakers to propose a law that allows them to do just that.
Then they may “buy” enough of the judicial system to allow that to be passed to the executive, not sure how they could get the executive branch to pass that through, but I am quite certain that such a law would never be passed by the public. How would that law, poisoning our environment be an advantage, a benefit to the public??
That is how the public will vote, you see. People will vote for their personal benefit, not to poison their environment.
We do not require a constitutional convention. We need to implement a new system, that has no further legal obligation to the old system. The original Declaration of Independence is all we need from the old system, the original Bill of Rights that clarifies that rights are owned by individuals, not businesses.
Who said anything about electronic voting??
My proposed system could be implemented with no more than voice telephones.
Please re-read my proposal, the safeguards about prepublished voting of the chosen representatives ensures that the public is aware of the general outcome, well before the deadline, any anomalies could be quickly and assuredly tracked and corrected.
As for the public being driven to make bad decisions based on fear, I absolutely agree there is always that risk, however that risk is greatly amplified in our current system, and is damped in my proposed system, as bad decisions are generally not allowed to pass the legislative, judicial and executive branches to be brought up for public consideration.
We would elect a President based on ability to evaluate and recommend GOOD solutions, then we elect Legislators based on their ability to craft elegant solutions to real problems, and Judges based on their ability to root out and disallow solutions that may be expedient, but erode, diminish or restrict the rights of individuals.
I also want to add, that like many objections, yours ends with the shade of concept that the public is too stupid to be self governing, that we somehow need to be ruled, as if we are children, or pets, not able to make informed decisions that affect our own lives.
I suggest that you read our Declaration of Independence, and realize that if we agree, that the public has no authority to self governance, then we are a nation of criminals, with no legal basis for existence, that rebelled against the King of England, and should immediately surrender to our rightful monarch.

Like · 7 · More · 20 December 2014

David Jones

While business can affect votes in Mike’s proposed system, they can already do so to a much higher degree than would be the effect in his proposal. 

I would recommend that the laws, when up for a vote by the public branch, not be allowed “commercial” air time. This is not because people are too stupid to self-govern… but rather advertising has done enough research to know what images appeal to our subconsciousness, affecting our decisions. Each individual’s rational mind is subject to influence by the subconscious, and thus laws can be influenced in a means that bypasses rational thinking.

Let the only form of “air time” of these laws be publicized debates… or require that the commericals come in consecutive pairs (one for and one against) such that all viewers see both advertisements and are equally informed and influenced by the opposing views.

I did have a question, Mike. You stated in a reply, “If a bad decision is made, it will affect the ones who made that decision, and they will have an immediate opportunity to change it, without waiting for those “politics” to get sorted out first.” 

I am curious what you propose about an immediate opportunity to change it, as I didn’t see any such thing in your proposal. I am also a little concerned about the statement, “it will affect the ones who made that decision”. I can envision several laws that would potentially pass the first three branches of the government that give the public branch the opportunity to vote on a law that can only benefit themselves at the harm to other individuals. 

For example, if concepts such as taxes are up for public vote, most individuals will vote to minimize their taxes and if a budget is mandatory, they will push the taxation on people outside their category. This is effectively targeting the upper income inidividuals, which are a much smaller population than the middle and lower income individuals. They (the middle and lower income individuals) actually aren’t making a decision that affects them negatively but is still a bad decision, unless of course the rich move out of the country, leaving no one to tax.

I truly like your idea, but I think some finer tuning may be required.

Like · 2 · More · 12 March

Mike Anderson

Hi David Jones, Thanks for the questions! Yes, if the public enacts a bad law, then it will be obvious that it is bad, because the public will not like the consequences. Once those consequences become obviously bad, the public will call for the executive branch to task congress with a repeal, or amendment solution. Possibly both. No politics involved, the public demands a fix, and they get one, immediately.
As for “taxes” please consider that every law that is passed that requires funding requires that funding be stated, clearly in the law. The ONLY taxes the public would pay would be taxes they agreed to pay in order to fund that implementation of law.
As for advertisements, I really don’t care what the media says, because if the media can influence the passage of a bad law, it would quickly become obvious to the public that they cannot trust the damn media. Remember, the public is the branch that will enjoy, or suffer the consequences of laws passed. The public branch is the only branch that is authorized to enact laws. If we make bad law, we live with it, fix it, or get rid of it.

Like · 2 · More · 12 March

Mike Anderson

As for the public passing a law that benefits a minority at the expense of a majority, I cannot see how that could happen. As for a law that harms individuals while benefiting the public at large, yes, I can see that happening. So what? Is that not what government does? Benefit the majority? If we consider an individual have their civil rights trampled, that is the purview of the judicial branch, to disallow those laws. And no, to be clear, NOT our current judicial branch, which is just another ring in the circus. I would recommend a 9 seat panel elected by congress, and a 9 seat panel elected by the public, with an appointed panel of 5 by the executive branch.

Unlike · 4 · More · 12 March

Mike Anderson

I WANT to fine tune this! I WANT to test it, hammer it, see if it can be broken. i want it to succeed, but if it can’t, then we NEED to get something ELSE going and damn soon.

Unlike · 7 · More · 12 March

Mike Anderson

I vehemently oppose any attempt at a violent revolution. I hope to spread my proposal, through people who feel as I do that a change is required. Feel free to copy paste the link to my note in any manner that seems appropriate. Discuss it with friends family etc. People will have questions, and I INVITE reasoned discussion. I have made several modifications based on discussions already. There are still unresolved matters, such as how to set up a judicial panel, and how can the public initiate a repeal, or force a repeal if needed.
In any case, if this or something like this is to be placed, it MUST be done by a majority consensus of the public. Not by force or violence.
I am HOPING that a university social sciences program might be interested in doing experiments to test my proposed system, to find holes, weaknesses, concerns questions etc. I want it hammered hard, break it if possible, and fix what broke and hammer it again.
We have time to get it right.
One thing many people object to is the vulnerability of digital network security to hacking. the answer is to NOT use computer networks.
This proposed system can be used with no more than radio and telephone. The key is the speed of communication, not digital networks. Thanks for looking. Discuss, Spread the link!
Refer any questions that you cannot answer to me.
BTW, I have ZERO interest in being elected or appointed to ANY public position or office, NONE. I would refuse if asked.

Unlike · 4 · More · 2 June


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s