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

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)

Weekly Overview




A. Statistics


Week # 15 (23/10/23 – 29, 2023 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(15 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(15 wks.).

…20.........................14.......................32..........................1........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running slightly ahead of the prior week despite there being the same number of responses per day. It is behind the year to date.

Do we care who is going to be in control, as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence (Negative Climate Change; Possible Nuclear War; Pandemics; etc.)?

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

The Time Line

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence (Sometimes quite overt) is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe. They are incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual authoritarian, but benevolent, one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

C. A Proposal: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it. It is not a pipe-dream.......but requires a forceful coming together on the future of mankind.

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on four main principles:

1. A member can propose a Statement they consider “generally accepted, with Supporting Reasons.

2. If there is no proposed Revision of a Statement, with Reasons, nor Opposition Challenge, within one week, then the Statement is considered "generally-accepted”. (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

3. If the Statement is Challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement can post Supplementary Supporting Reasons. Those opposing the Statement may also post supplementary Challenges, with Reasons.

4. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere. Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

I did my own research. Libertarianism appears to be just extreme Capitalism dressed up as something else.

That is what your marxist sources tell you. Ask our next PM, Pierre P, and he will explain to you that Libertarianism is the system designed to fairly reward hard and smart work/entrepreneurship (not capital)... and in which free handouts from legal theft do not exist...

[Bob Armstrong]

Partisan Statements: Democratic Marxism

(Generally Accepted by both CT'er DM's and CT'er Non-DM's as accurate policy or acceptable comment)



Statement # 12 (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.


Supporting Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Processing

There shall be one week for both "Revision" and "Opposition" Challenges; deadline: Thursday, November 3, 2023 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Gillanders]

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to......

Waiting for Dilip to explain was frustrating, so I did my own research. Libertarianism appears to be just extreme Capitalism dressed up as something else. Not my cup of tea.

[Bob Armstrong]

Sorry - duplication of post # 449 (23/10/21)

Now deleted here.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to bring about an end to the "harming of others" in the world economy. Specifically, you have FAILED to communicate what exactly is "fair competition" because your Libertarian credo is "do no harm to others except in fair competition."

Until you define that, right down to the smallest detail, you fail to communicate. If you really want to be a spokesperson for Libertarianism, you need to step up the plate and communicate this concept of "fair competition" without your usual resorting to technobabble.

You need to define it so clearly that even a skilled lawyer couldn't run rings around it. Come on, I dare you! I dare you because I know you CANNOT do it.

I do not need to convince any nasty trolls...
On the other hand, Bob G may be currently misguided, but he will eventually get to the truth...

[Pargat Perrer]

Anything goes, especially the harming of others as in the jungles, is just the opposite of what Libertarianism offers; you have not yet understood it...

And LPUs are the only sensible thing in Bob A's lengthy posts...

If Bob G. is not yet understanding Libertarianism, it is because of you Dilip. "What we have here is a failure to communicate" seems apropos here.

You, Dilip, have utterly FAILED to communicate how Libertarianism is going to bring about an end to the "harming of others" in the world economy. Specifically, you have FAILED to communicate what exactly is "fair competition" because your Libertarian credo is "do no harm to others except in fair competition."

Until you define that, right down to the smallest detail, you fail to communicate. If you really want to be a spokesperson for Libertarianism, you need to step up the plate and communicate this concept of "fair competition" without your usual resorting to technobabble.

You need to define it so clearly that even a skilled lawyer couldn't run rings around it. Come on, I dare you! I dare you because I know you CANNOT do it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The anything goes, only the strong survive jungle philosophy of Libertarians

But I don't think your Local Political Units (LPU) will ever be popular.

Anything goes, especially the harming of others as in the jungles, is just the opposite of what Libertarianism offers; you have not yet understood it...

And LPUs are the only sensible thing in Bob A's lengthy posts...

[Bob Gillanders]

Am I a Democratic Marxist?

That was an interesting survey. I had quite a few Yes answers, OMG, I maybe a Democratic Marxist. LOL

I am not buying all of it, but where you defend democracy against authoritarian rule, and narrow the wealthy inequality problem by taxing the wealthy and support programs like Universal Health Care and Universal Income, excellent. The anything goes, only the strong survive jungle philosophy of Libertarians, not for me.

But I don't think your Local Political Units (LPU) will ever be popular. Too hard to explain. You have to work with the world we have, evolutionary process, make changes as opportunity presents itself. Anyway, don't get absorbed in arguing this stuff on chesstalk, live your life in the real world. Enjoy it.

[Bob Armstrong]

Am I a Democratic Marxist?

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 6

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members, DM-G viewers, and DMGF members/viewers.





Survey

In this survey, answering “yes” to many of the questions may indicate you are in mainstream Marxian thought, though you may never have seen your progressive views in this light:

................................................................................................................................................Yes No Unsure

1. Labour should have priority over Capital...........................................................................................................................______ _____ _____
2. Capitalism, of necessity, generates unhealthy extremes of wealth and income........... ______ ____ _____
3. Workers should own, or at least have 50 % control of, the means of production.......______ _____ _____
4. The legal structure of cooperatives should be favoured over corporations................ ______ _____ _____
5. There should be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)...................................................... ______ _____ _____
6. The tax system should include both a wealth and very progressive income tax. Tax loopholes allowing
   legal tax “avoidance” must be closed. Those benefiting most from the common system should
   substantially contribute back into funding the system................................................. ______ _____ _____
7. Self-governance from the bottom-up is always preferable to top-down governance of the electorate.
   (Example: Ontario municipalities should not be dictated to by the province)............. ______ _____ _____
8. There are three historical implementations of “socialism”:
   
   a. USSR-style Communism (Example: China) – unacceptable; maintained at the end of the barrel
   of a gun, with breaching of human rights; no open elections....................................... _____ _____ _____
   
   b. Democratic Socialism (Example: Venezuela) - acceptable when competent government, but
   generally centralizes power, rather than decentralizing it..................................................................................................................................._____ ____ ______
   
   c. Democratic Marxism (Closest Example: Chile - 1971-73 – Unity Government of Socialist
   President Salvadore Allende) – best economic system; best self-governance model.... _____ _____ _____
9. The electorate has the right to decide the system under which it wishes to govern itself. Democratic
   Marxism must win the hearts of the electorate at the ballot box, and then maintain support democratically.............................................................................................................. ______ _____ _____
10. A person can be a “Democratic Marxist” without being a theoretical “expert” in Marx' writings (though the more knowledge, the better).......................................................................... ______ _____ _____

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Author: Bob Armstrong, Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Chair

Original – 20/10/24; Most Recent Revision – 20/12/18 - Bob Armstrong


Disclaimer

Our main author of our Discussion Papers, Bob Armstrong, readily admits he is no academic, nor a Marxist expert. He considers himself only an “armchair Marxist” - he has read a bit, but thought about Democratic Marxism (DM) a lot. So he writes much the way an ordinary working person might about Democratic Marxism. He hopes these short simple papers will therefore help working people access the concepts of DM fairly easily.

He admits also that these papers are therefore a “work-in-progress”. His concepts and strategies are constantly under revision as he reads a bit more, and thinks a bit more, about this whole area. So you may see evolution of concepts in later papers, only lightly touched on in earlier papers. In fact, some early ideas may be now seen as contradictory, and jettisoned totally. Bob's choice is to let the reader take the same path as he has, and sort things out with him, rather than him constantly having to go back and edit every prior paper, with every change of nuance on the concepts. He hopes readers, like him, will see how the concepts have layers to them, and that they are not obvious at the start.

So please separate the “message” (The actual text concepts) from Bob, the “messenger”, and his limitations in depth of knowledge as author. The author may be weak, yet the message might have some merit, and even, nonetheless, be strong and clear. As always, the readers must not rely on expert opinion, and an appeal to authority – we must do the best to decide for ourselves.

So we ask readers, and Democratic Marxists, to cut us, and Bob, some slack, for the evolution in thinking in some aspects of the overall concepts and strategies, as we push on.

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute – 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)

Weekly Overview




A. Statistics

Week # 14 (23/10/16 – 22, 2023 [7 days])

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(14 wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day.......(14 wks.).

…14.........................28.......................37..........................1........................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are running substantially behind the prior week and the year to date. The reason.....only 1 response per day.....activity slowed almost to a stop the last 2 weeks.

Are CT'ers now becoming bored with this issue of human life (Which dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic)?.

Have they stopped caring who is going to be in control, as humans battle to survive in an environment more and more hostile to their continued existence?

B. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

Conspiracy Theory?

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

The Time Line

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence (Sometimes quite overt) is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe. They are incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual authoritarian, but benevolent, one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

C. A Proposal: The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it. It is not a pipe-dream.......but requires a forceful coming together on the future of mankind.

D. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on four main principles:

1. A member can propose a Statement they consider “generally accepted, with Supporting Reasons.

2. If there is no proposed Revision of a Statement, with Reasons, nor Opposition Challenge, within one week, then the Statement is considered "generally-accepted”. (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

3. If the Statement is Challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement can post Supplementary Supporting Reasons. Those opposing the Statement may also post supplementary Challenges, with Reasons.

4. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

E. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere. Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A (Anti-NWO/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Sustainable Earth Project: A Collection of Villages
(A Discussion on Human Self-Government)



The Project

This Project seeks to initiate across the planet a conversation about a radical realignment in the world of both human relationships and human self-government.

Local Political Units (LPU's = Villages)

If the Earth was all local political units (A collection of villages), then we could have direct democracy via the new technologies (eliminate politicians by eliminating representative democracy).

Nations would dissolve themselves as countries and devolve all powers to the Villages. Sometimes the powers would be devolved to coalition committees of numbers of villages.

The Role of Governments

Governments would become the secretariats for carrying out the will of the people, as expressed in the Villages or groups of Villages.

Future Prospects

It is not a pipe dream.......it just needs people to come forward and demand it.

Multiplicity of Infrastructure

Question:

If you have hundreds of thousands of self-governing villages, how would you ever deal efficiently with all of the disparities of geography and economic potential?

Response

a. Geographic Differences

There is no doubt that geography showers certain benefits on the residents. For example, if you are a village on the Mediterranean Sea, there are economic advantages to having a Port. Are there any advantages to being a village in the middle of the Sahara Desert? Dry Air may be one from the health point of view of some people.

The goal of the "Sustainable Earth Project" is that through "cooperation", and "altruism", villages will work hard not to "win", but to help other villages to be 'Sustainable", even if that may mean some inequality of trade. This new paradigm works only if ALL villages are "sustainable". The goal is that each village is unique and has something to offer, that will keep the residents happy to be a resident in their village. We cannot afford to have villages that just don't work.

b. Economic Potential Differences

Again disparity causes problems........yes it is wonderful that some villages will have much greater economic potential than others. And we want to exploit this to the maximum (Within the rules of
sustainability). But it is not "us for ourselves" in the Sustainable Earth Project.....it is WE (All Villages) must achieve some decent local civic quality of life....so there is going to have to be "bartering", and it may have to be "Subsidy Bartering".........one village can trade something the other needs, for what it needs, despite the disparity of value of what is being "traded".
This may require that some villages are helped in some way by others (Sort of like Canadian Federal-Provincial transfer payments).

This is truly a sticky wicket.

One can think in terms of "regions of circles". So any village has a "circle of villages" around its borders. The most natural dynamic economically is for the village, and those in its first concentric
circle, to enter into bi-lateral, and multi-lateral arrangements, so that all villages get what they need, and can accomplish tasks important to all their residents, efficiently.

Physical/Legal Infrastructure (Needed to support inter-village dealings)

One could consider regional transportation as an "infrastructure" problem for a village to solve. This seems most amenable to cooperation - a village coalition to set up a regional transport authority for all of them in the first circle.

This is not so simple though..........we have circles overlaying circles in this paradigm.......But villages will be able to negotiate a workable, and desirable, solution to mass transit, where there is going to be decent service for all the residents of all villages in the "Coalition".

Villages with Scarce Resources

Question:

What will be done re poverty-stricken villages that have no prospects for improving themselves because all of their scarce resources are used up by their subsistence-level existence?"

Response

A partial, but substantial, solution to this is "Transfer Payments" to the "less sustainable on their own" villages. It may also be that some unsustainable villages will simply have to join with one or more bordering villages to achieve at least some basic level of sustainability, which then can be subsidized.

Invitation

We invite anyone reading this, and interested in giving input, to e-mail:

Bob Armstrong
bobarm111 at gmail.com

Acknowledgement

Some material above arose in an exchange between Peter McKillop & Bob Armstrong.

Democratic Marxist Global Institute (DMGI)

Most Recent Revision: 23/10/21

Copyright - 2023 - Democratic Marxist Global Institute

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government (Continued)

[Part II; see Part I above]

B. Partisan Statements

a. Libertarianism

10 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 354– 23/9/12

[Secretarial Note # 1 - re all Statements

Statements are generated, and adopted, or not, by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum): https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...205-new-world- order-nwo-sometimes-called-the-great-reset.

The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

A Statement (Or more) may be wrong; it is the best this group could do; it may be that others may have to do corrections]

b. Democratic Marxism

11 Statements - Last full update (All completed to the date) – Post # 405 – 23/9/26

[Secretarial Note # 2: re Statements # 1 - # 11 on Democratic Marxism

These have been endorsed as accurate, not only by the group mentioned in Secretarial Note # 1, but also by a group of about 250 members of a Fb group, The Democratic Marxist Global Forum. They represent the partisan political spectrum, and the issue spectrum. It may be that one or more of these Statements is wrong; it is the best these groups could do; others may have to make any necessary corrections.
A Statement (Or more) may be wrong; it is the best this group could do; it may be that others may have to do corrections]

C. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.

D. Group Decisions

Secretary Replacement Nominations

The position of Group Secretary was open for one week for Nominations. Bob Armstrong, then current Group Secretary agreed to let his name stand to continue, if elected.

Processing

After one week, no other CT'er had been nominated to run for Secretary.

Conclusion

Bob Armstrong was acclaimed volunteer Group Secretary indefinitely or until the next election, when called for.

E. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.


3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time).


4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)
(Started: 22/12/5)



[Part I of 2 parts]

Statements Update

A. 12 Statements On Human Self-Government Generally

(All processing currently completed – 23/10/19)

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

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.

Statement # 8

Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.

Statement # 9

When we add "human nature" to "power" in governing, corruption and abuse of power result. This is the reason all political human self-governance structures have resulted in:

I) the creation of an elite group who wield the power, and
II) the exploitation, by the elite group, of the powerless and marginalized segments of society.

Statement # 10

If a hard and smart-working, disciplined family is unable to live comfortably, then something is wrong with their government system being followed.

Supporting Reason 1 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 323 - 23/9/8

People will be always struggling to get a decent portion of an ever-shrinking common pie; and the common pie shrinks rapidly despite the running of anything efficiently will become the government's business. But for the bunch of government appointed administrators who do not have their own skin at stake if the system is a mess, the only task will be to convince everyone that the system is very very expensive to run. In this situation it becomes hard for many citizens to live "comfortably".

Supporting Reason 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 323– 23/9/8

Fact

As an example, 50% of Canadians work hard, and save next to nothing.......living paycheck to paycheck. And this in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. The situation is even much worse in many developing nations.

I fear that the issue causing poverty in the world is not efficiency and excess spending of governments of all types (An example often given is re Canadian socialized medicine. Even if this is so, no Canadian is willing to opt instead for the USA Health Care model, except some extreme, wealthy Canadian Oligarchs). It is the very type of system, not how it is operated (All systems are subject to some inefficiency and luxurious & corrupt spending.

In Capitalism, it is the very dynamic of Capitalism which MUST keep some pool of poor, for there to be a much smaller pool of rich.......this drives ever wider, by necessity, the wage gap. This is why Capitalist Social Democracy arose ........ to try to find ways within Capitalism to moderate the rate of divergence between the haves and the have-nots.

Replacing Capitalism with some type of Democratic Socialism seems at least a first step to citizens living "comfortably".

Statement # 11

Some political systems inhibit the amount and extent of government corruption and exploitation by the "elite" (Whomever they may be in any particular system) than others. The systems that do best are "local & small" (Everyone knows what is going on) and have direct democracy (Not representative government).

Supporting Reason

If the planet were to dissolve nations, and become a planet of a "Collection of Villages", with "direct" voting on substantial issues, then corruption would be less, and the consequences would be less (Likely hard for a small village to amass an arsenal of nuclear weapons).

Statement # 12

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.

Supporting Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Supporting Reason 2 - Dilip Panjwani

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

Statement # 12 (Proposed)

Currently, and in the past, most daily services for residents have been the jurisdiction of cities, towns, villages, townships, etc...What is found is that this tends to minimize abuse of authority and criminality.

Support Reason 1 - Bob Armstrong

This is the case because the residents know each other, know what is going on, and discuss it among themselves. They can intervene where something is going off the rails, because the power system is small and local. In representative government, in small format, the politicians are neighbours of the electors......the representatives cannot afford to make the residents' lives miserable, or so will their local life.

Support Reason 2 - Dilip Panjwani

The citizens and their circles need to do that themselves... history teaches us that whenever such tasks are managed by big government, misery ensues... in Bob A's vision, local governments which you allude to would be the local circles...

Processing

After one week, no CT'er has launched a Revision and/or Opposition Challenge.

Conclusion

Statement # 12 is generally accepted; it joins the list of Statements.

Bob A (As Secretary)