New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Dilip Panjwani]

And Bob, the objection from PP you allude to in all your other posts today, has a simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. And being an experienced lawyer, you know that the Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Proposed Revision:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (Group Secretary).

Hi Bob, I think what you meant to write in Statement 3 was: The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.

Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is 'common sense' and what 'maximizes the freedom of the individual'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT MAXIMIZES THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

The maximizing of the freedom of the individual is ANARCHY, in which there are no laws at all.

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 2

The main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".
[Note: Secretary did minimal editing to the original Statement for clarity]

Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is honoured and not honoured? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THE OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?

These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3 (Proposed Revision)

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (this Statement # 3 is Libertarian policy, and it is unworkable): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is 'harmful to others/society'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT IS HARMFUL TO OTHERS / SOCIETY? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Proposed Revision:

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:

The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.

[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]

Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.

Bob A (Group Secretary).

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks Pargat - for a start, re Statement # 3 - you are dead on........though I believe Libertarians, under freedom, do hold this, no Libertarian here has said this. So, though I would keep it in as legitimate Libertarian policy, in this group, it is perhaps premature.......I will wait 'til the topic of self-harm comes up under Human Self Government here, before I make a submission to put it back in. I will treat your position as a Challenge that this is not legitimate Libertarian policy, and it will be processed.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.

[

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?

These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!




[

B]Statement # 2[/B]

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is honoured and not honoured? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THE OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is 'harmful to others/society'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT IS HARMFUL TO OTHERS / SOCIETY? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

By the way Bob .... no one, not even Dilip, posted in this thread to my knowledge that harming oneself would be legal under Libertarianism. I don't know where you got that from. Just an FYI, not an issue we are debating here, but you might want to remove that statement about harming oneself.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is 'common sense' and what 'maximizes the freedom of the individual'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT MAXIMIZES THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

The maximizing of the freedom of the individual is ANARCHY, in which there are no laws at all.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Challenge: Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, that 'the Natural Law does not apply?' WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

Pargat Perrer - Post # 231 -23/8/18 - "Such hypocrisy from Sid and Dilip! Please recognize that, Bob."



My Response:

Pargat, you can call whomever you wish a "troll". You can post whatever judgments you wish, subject to libel law.

However..........I am group secretary - it is not up to me to judge participants. I am simply a "facilitator". For the benefit of the group, I try to put into good form, as readable, executive summary Statements, the declarations of participants here.

Secondly, you go on and on in the posts above about what you think Dilip's Libertarian position is. Yet you make no formal "Challenge" to the Statement as being an inaccurate Statement of Libertarian policy. Yes, you say that surveillance will not only be in "public spaces", but in the bedroom and everywhere in our private spaces. Yet you will not make the effort for this group of CT'ers to even do us the courtesy of making a slight amendment to the Statement, and posting the revision. And it seems you otherwise accept my rendition of the Libertarian position. What is going on here? If you think it is "whitewashing" Libertarianism, produce the more accurate Statement......if accepted by this CT'er group, then we will thank you.

I am NOT a Libertarian; I am a Democratic Marxist.

But, as group secretary, I have put my partisan politics on the shelf, and have tried, quite successfully I believe, to put myself in the other's shoes, and think as they do. So what do you want of me as Group Secretary, Pargat?

Is there anyone in this CT'er Group who supports my position, as a group member, that our producing generally accepted Statements on Human Self Government, and on Libertarianism, and I've now been asked to make some Statements generally acceptable to Democratic Marxists in this CT'er Group, is a very worthwhile project?

Or does the whole group feel pursuing my project here (I originated this thread on 22/12/5) is a total waste of your time. If so, why have you been coming, and making responses, for over 8 months now? If so, I have lots of other things to do with my time than to be a totally volunteer secretary here. I don't waste my time either.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

I did not and am not calling anyone a troll. I AM BEING CALLED A TROLL BY DILIP, REINFORCED BY SID.

I did not call you a Libertarian.

Please do not make false accusations against me and thus destroy your non-partisan status for which I admire you.

As for my challenges to your statements generally accepted on LIbertarianism, they are forthcoming.....

[Pargat Perrer]

This is what one would expect a troll to write (by definition, deliberately posting misinterpretations, misquotations, exaggerations, misleading, irrelevant, offensive or other disruptive posts).!

No misquotations, no exaggerations, I have posted your EXACT WORDS. Do you now deny what you have posted?

Offensive? Yes, to YOU because you are offended that someone has your motives correctly figured out.

Nobody said there will be less interpretation of the law in Libertarianism, etc. .....

YES you have said this! You describe Natural Law as one simple law : do no harm to others, except in fair competition. THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED!

And you said that all the myriad laws that we currently have will be (under Libertarianism) eliminated.

What is one simple law versus a myriad of laws? IT IS LESS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

ARE YOU NOW DENYING WHAT YOU POSTED?

And btw, digital surveillance does not mean somebody constantly watching you in your bedroom; in the future, it could be intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence in a way that is acceptable to all (except the criminals who do not want any truth to be revealed against them). .....

...intelligently and discretely applied in jurisprudence ....

TECHNOBABBLE! SAY SOMETHING UNDERSTANDABLE! WTF ARE YOU SAYING? YOU ARE DELIBERATELY OBFUSCATING!

Anyone with eyes to see can realize this, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Libertarianism


Libertarianism


Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.




Wikipedia - The Libertarian Party is a political party in the United States that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government.

Founder: David Nolan
Founded: December 11, 1971, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Headquarters: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Statements (To date)

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing: Revision proposed (Post # 174 - 23/8/13); being processed; deadline: Sunday, 23/8/20 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Statement # 8 (Proposed by Pargat Perrer - see Note below)

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance.

[Note: As group secretary, I am attempting to extract a Statement from the recent post # 218 (23/8/18) of Pargat Perrer. Pargat is free to revise my draft here as he needs to, to make it his own, if mine fails to capture it. As well, he can post any future Statement on his own, in this format for Proposed Statements, as can any member of the group.]

Processing: No formal "Challenge" to date; some postings indicating disagreements of some kinds, but not clear what is being challenged; Deadline for Challenge as not Libertarian policy: Fri., 23/8/25 @ 11:59 PM EDT

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements Generally Accepted by this CT'er Group, so far, on Human Self-Government

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Statement # 6

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Statement # 7 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong - Post # 198 - 23/8/16)

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Processing - no Challenge to date; deadline: Wed., 23/8/23 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)