Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jos Boersema <Josjoha@market.socialism.nl>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Council Government: Dealing with unruly (childish) people
 =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=B1200?=
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 14:57:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 397
Message-ID: <v2su81$2ttt0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 16:57:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3294efb9c113e50ac995903e82fa75b4";
	logging-data="3078048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I7AUSg5OQZsqbnWipe36V"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SokvzsdGWscnmdP/GLGPaqov6jc=
Bytes: 24308

(Preface, skip if you are familiar with the model of a Council Government
 proposed here) It has been clear since centuries to many scholars and
 writers, how "Parliament" is an insufficient system of Governance, due
 to the corruptability of the elected people (which is also an expression
 of the lying, thieving, ignorance and evil of that Nation its people as
 a whole).  The model of electing someone for 4 years, and giving a group
 a mandate to more or less do as they please, leaves too many openings
 for bribery and selfish profiteering.
 
 The historical solution proposed to this problem has generally been:
 the Council Government model (for lack of a better name). The idea is
 that people form groups small enough, to keep effective control over
 their representative, allowing them to immediately remove and replace
 their representative, for example when the representative is starting
 their scams. The model allows a closer connection between the elected
 and the people. It removes national bottlenecks of power. It allows
 people to casually grow into the business of Governance, without the
 need to beg the forces of evil for their blessings (aka the super rich,
 who tend to control the mass propaganda systems with all their many
 scams and nefarious control mechanisms, following their pathetic
 and disgraceful childish/monkey need to forever control more). 
 
 The National ballot, the National political Party top, the national
 propaganda (mass media), these are bottlenecks of power in the
 Parliamentary system. A District model of Parliament does not solve the
 problem either, because a District of for example 40 000 persons is
 already massive and incomprehensible for an human being. A Council
 Government model is looking at election circles in the size of a hundred
 persons. On below linked website a model has been worked out which
 proposed election circles of only 50 persons. Even this circle is
 can be constituted of (less formal) smaller circles of for example 10
 or even less. For every circle an internal administrator is first
 elected, and then a representative, and a reserve representative (these
 may not be the same person). 
 
 The Representatives form Councils also by a minimum of 50, at which
 amount they are a local Government over a certain area of land, acting
 like we are now used to from our local Governments, or somewhat more
 casual than that due to their small size. This article is not about how
 the structure develops upwards to larger sizes, so look elsewhere for a
 discussion of that.


          Dealing with unruly/childish people

Let's say you are living in a small village of 200 persons, and you wish
to pursue this model of Governance for some reason, however your people
are unruly, disinterested, will run around wildly during any large
meeting, people speaking will generally not be listened to while the
families continue with the hustle and bustle of their lives with each
other (in other words, happy Jewish people sitting in a Synagogue ? ;-).
At least I have heard it can be quite unruly, but in a fun way.

There seem to be various scenarios which can play out.

One scenario is that it just falls apart before it even organizes, the
plan is ditched and forgotten.

Another scenario is that it all works smoothly, and people learn to make
their common decisions together this way.

Another scenario is that it falls apart, but someone with enough clout
puts their foot down and forces the whole group to comply with the
model. The question now becomes: is this the model, or is this the
opposite of the model, is it now a dictatorship in the guise of a
Council Government. Is this person who had the clout to do it, doing a
good thing ? If he had the clout to do it, can the people within the
model still have a useful experience within the model ? This probably
depends on the person who has this power, if it is a good person or a
bad person, socially competent and understanding, or less so. 

It is interesting to note that the Parliament first came about as
an advisory organ to the King, and has later deposed the King. The
Parliament, despite its failings, has proven to be much better (in
my opinion) than a Monarchy. The corruption and evil committed by the
Kings and Tyrants (often the same thing) is probably the low point in
human history.  (Don't forget that in the Nations as they now exist, the
Parliament is not the most powerful Government; the super rich Plutocracy
are competing with the Parliament for power, and often are superior over
it, which is something which worsens in time due to the bad economics of
the Nations of the world, including Israel who has overthrown their Torah
of Moshe Rabbeinu already for thousands of years). 

Perhaps it could be concluded that, so long as you have a good person
for this role, such as a respected village elder or group of village
elders, likely a person who already had a lot of power, it is acceptable
if you organize the Council Government model under that(those) person(s)
its(their) power and influence, for the sake of avoiding the total chaos
of the model.  The moment you end up with a bad person in this powerful
role, you just stop listening to them/him(her). This is a repeat of
the experience with Monarchy and Parliament, just on a smaller scale
and with a more democratic model in the role of Parliament (another
hopefully better version of it).

Another scenario is that you do not have anyone who can organize the
model on a larger scale, or a bad person who should be deposed by such a
model and should not be asked to organize it lest he would use that
system to make his bad governing even worse. Now you are faced with
chaos from the people, and evil from the top, which is probably one of
the more difficult situations to be in. You can of course try to become
the benevolent dictator yourself, but we assume here that this is not
the scenario for some reason (that scenario was already discussed above).
I think it may be the smartest thing to just go to people individually,
and ask them if they would like to participate in a possibly minority
organization (the word "minority" here just means a numerical minority 
within an undefined or homogeneous group of people). While the
organization might have as its ultimate aim to deal with common decision
making issues (such as: to build a bridge for common use, should a
dangerous tree branch be cut or not, what do we do about the dangerous
crossing in town, to organizing help for the needy, etc etc, anything
common and of interest to all (decent/normal) people), you do not
have the right to start with a claim to have such powers exclusively if 
you are a minority (unless you are the largest so aimed organiation
perhaps, with the largest support among the people of all such
organiations). You can however start doing good. You can avoid making
any claims. Just do good, and that's it. You are there to be good, and
to do good. 

That is all that is required. The common interest is a good, which in
many cases can be helped by individuals and small groups who jump into
a need out ofd their own initiative. Even if you sooner or later can
claim exclusive rights to common decision making (example: our system
and people want to put the bridge at point A, but you others wish to
put the bridge at point B, and we don't have the money or need for two
bridges), you can often still try to avoid bringing the power question
to a head with others who have taken up similar roles for the common
interest. Where it becomes difficult to live side by side, you can then
debate the matter of the decision making itself in a particular matter,
and if necessary resort to a Rerefendum.

Referendums are its own (big) problem of course, which will also not be
discussed here. They can be quite manipulative. It should be done with a
lot of care and thinking. Who is voting, who is counting, are all votes
of equal value (compare: persons now living on the build site of a
future bridge versus people living further away and rarely crossing the
river, etc). Will everyone who pays have an equal vote, will everyone
pay the same amount, will everyone benefit the same amount ? I wonder if
you can debate for years all the details of just a simple bridge and how
to decide upon it, and still not manage to reach a solid conclusion on
how to resolve the matter.

At least you have an excuse to get together for a talk and a laugh. I
imagine that eventually the pressure of a need will force a debate to
some kind of a result. Needless to say, it is usually best to set up
some rules of the decision making (for example, vote), after which
everyone agrees that if the procedures are followed, all will accept the
decision and move on, support the decision made in practice even though
they may stay against it in thought and word, and not work against the
decision.

An exception to such a rule will obviously have to be, if the decision
constitutes an evil, which needs to be resisted on principle and at all
cost. However in such cases, you cannot agree to any procedure to
resolve a matter already. You cannot say "We will allow the never
cancelling of loans for the poor in our village¹ if some majority of
votes is in favor of doing that, because it constitutes an evil upon the
poor". If this isn't a clear enough form of evil, insert something
worse. Then you do not submit to the procedure, and won't accept an
outcome of others going ahead with the procedure anyway, and you don't
support them in it, perhaps even will go against them, or leave them, or
force them to leave (etc). In a democratic sense, this is the right to
assembly. You have the right to assemble as a group of people who wish
to live a certain way. Others who want to live differently have the same
right, and both need to do it in different places. If the differences
are small, you can stay in the same Nation. If the differences are
large, you have to form different Sovereignties, and live in different
areas (who have a reasonably coherent shape of borders, which likely
requires many people moving their place of residence).

    Why bother ?

Because we are human beings. We are supposed to grow up, and become nice
friendly people, who support each other, even though we live in our own
houses, have our own private lands, gardens, and organize our work alone
or with others as we see fit. 

Because the Kings have betrayed us.

Because the rich have betrayed us.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========