The original idea behind the Electoral College, set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, was for the leaders of the states to select the most worthy person in the nation as president, without regard to the person's state of origin or political party. Then, even though our Constitution is thoroughly non-partisan, parties gained a foothold. To quote William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, "The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately."
The advent of partisan politics led to a constitutional amendment which altered the Electoral College. To quote Kimberling again, "By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections."
Now, instead of recognizing the self-serving nature of partisan politics and the danger parties pose for our people, we lament the transformation of the Electoral College into a rubber stamp that give parties control of presidential elections. Even with the 12th Amendment, we need not yield this power to those who control our political parties. We must change the way we select those who represent us ... including the members of the Electoral College.
Fred
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Groups of Five
Urbano dela Cruz suggested setting up groups of five instead of three as originally proposed. He feels increasing the group size from three to five will reduce the potential for organized groups to target selected candidates for defeat. This table shows the progress of such an arrangement, for comparison with the original table.
In this example, after groups were assigned at each level, any remaining participants were carried to the next level as described in Devilish Details.
Fred
| Level 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) | Electors 5,367,378 1,073,478 214,698 42,942 8,590 1,718 346 70 | Selected 1,073,475 214,695 42,939 8,588 1,718 343 69 14 | Unselected 4,293,903 858,783 171,759 34,354 6,872 1,375 277 56 |
In this example, after groups were assigned at each level, any remaining participants were carried to the next level as described in Devilish Details.
Fred
Constraining Our Leaders
We all have an idea of goodness, but there is no objective measure of good. Each of us measures goodness in our own way. One person may think something good while another may think the same thing bad.
I started out believing people are naturally good, but drifted to a more neutral notion as I aged. Here's why:
Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Before humans reached the cave-man state they did what they had to do to survive. They existed like other animals. They killed for food and they killed those who threatened them. For them, killing was not a moral issue it was a matter of survival.
It is likely that these beings existed in herds, that they hunted and sheltered together, instinctively. If so, they might have lived like what we refer to as cave-men. However, those beings did not become "human" until they began to change their animalistic behavior. The ability to make such a change defines what we call humans.
Assuming cave-men lived in groups, it is reasonable to imagine that the most effective survivors of the group were the strongest members. We can also imagine that the strongest could and did take from the weakest. It is also likely the weaker took what they could from the stronger, even if it was only "leavings", to satisfy their needs.
But, need is relative. It depends on many factors. In the case of cave-men, it depended on the availability of food, an individual's size and/or appetite, the need to provide for mates and offspring, need to store reserves, and many other factors. It is not hard to imagine that, however primeval, different members of the group had different needs.
When these beings started to change their animalistic behavior, when they began to "think", there is a high likelihood that their thoughts related to their needs. At some point, those thoughts expanded to include opinions or judgments about the needs of other individuals in the group. The concepts of "good" and "bad" must have originated in this way.
At some point in the existence of cave-men, the weaker members of the community recognized that, since they did not have the strength to take from the stronger members by themselves, they needed the help of others if they were to survive. It would not have been difficult for the weaker members to recognize other members of the group who also suffered by their weakness. In some way, these weaker members combined to limit the domination of the stronger. That was the beginning of "civilization".
What is not stated, but must be recognized, is that the stronger members were members of the same group. They did not stand idly by and allow the weaker members to take from them. They participated in the formation of a solution. They used their strength to protect as much of what was "theirs" as they could. This laid the foundation for the concept of "ownership", and, by extension, the concept of "greed". Ownership was claimed by the strong and the attribution of greed was laid by the weak. This is the most important, but least acknowledged, aspect of the relationships which led to the origin and structure of civilization.
If this is a reasonable estimate of the origin of civilization, several things stand out:
1) Morality, or the concept of "good and bad", can not exist in the absence of intelligent thought. The squirrel, when he stores nuts for the winter, does not ask himself if he'd be wrong to store one more. If he finds another and feels the need for it, he takes it. For animals, there is no issue of good or bad, and the concept of "greed" does not exist. A moral sense is a mark of intelligence.
2) The driving force for the organization of society is the need to restrain the strongest members of the group. If the weaker members of the group do not feel threatened by the stronger, there is no need to organize.
3) The threat the weaker members of the original society felt had to result from deprivation of the resources needed for existence (probably food). If the stronger were perceived as taking more than they needed while the weaker suffered, that condition must have been characterized as "bad".
4) The mechanism society uses to restrict bad behavior is force. By definition, a weaker member can not control a stronger one. But, several weaker members, in unison, have enough power to control even the strongest. In this sense, civilization is a banding together of the members of a group to gain the strength needed to control members exhibiting "bad" behavior.
5) When discussing these relationships, we tend to use sophisticated terms to differentiate forms of undesirable behavior. Thus, we call the taking of more than one needs "greed". This tempts us to say civilization developed to limit greed. It is more likely the initial banding together mentioned above was to ensure the survival of the weaker members of the group rather than to penalize the stronger.
6) The role of civilization as a means of controlling excessive strength or power evolved over time. As the goods available for consumption expanded beyond rudimentary food, clothing and shelter, we see ample evidence that the more powerful acquired the surplus goods first. At the same time, they increased the sophistication of the ways they exercised their power to control what they considered "theirs". Reactively, the less powerful slowly developed ways to force broader distribution of the surplus goods. That process continues today.
Looked at this way, the concepts of good and bad can not exist for a single individual. They can only exist in terms of others. I was wrong to believe that humans are naturally good. At birth, they are neither. It's true some children are born with what is called a "bad" nature, but that is a judgment rendered by others. The infant, itself, has no concept of "good" or "bad".
For each of us, the idea of good and bad grows as we develop. Initially, we see those who gratify our wishes as good and those who deny us what we want as bad. But we soon realize good and bad are much more complex than that. We exist in a constant and ever-changing mixture of good and bad, starting with our parents who supply our needs (good) and control us (bad). The choices we make flow from our understanding of that mixture, influenced by our individual characteristics. The more powerful among us may consider actions good that are abhorrent to the less powerful, but they are neither good nor bad unless they affect others and their goodness or badness depend how they affect others.
That, it seems to me, is the essence of good and bad. It is also a fairly obvious statement of the human condition. While the foregoing was written in a search for the origin and nature of goodness, it painted a picture of the weaker members of the human race forcing civilized behavior on the stronger and the stronger members impeding the civilizing efforts of their weaker brethren as well as they could. I started out trying to derive a basis for believing that humans are naturally "good", a personal bias I wanted to justify. I failed. Instead, I found a basis for understanding why we can't trust our leaders.
But that seems to create a paradox: We must have leaders, and leaders, by their nature, must lead. We are properly taught from childhood to respect and revere our leaders. How can we square that with the notion that "we can't trust our leaders"? We can only do so when we recognize that there is a difference between "trust" and "blind trust". Even those who followed Alexander learned to put bounds on his ambition.
It has ever been so.
I started out believing people are naturally good, but drifted to a more neutral notion as I aged. Here's why:
Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Before humans reached the cave-man state they did what they had to do to survive. They existed like other animals. They killed for food and they killed those who threatened them. For them, killing was not a moral issue it was a matter of survival.
It is likely that these beings existed in herds, that they hunted and sheltered together, instinctively. If so, they might have lived like what we refer to as cave-men. However, those beings did not become "human" until they began to change their animalistic behavior. The ability to make such a change defines what we call humans.
Assuming cave-men lived in groups, it is reasonable to imagine that the most effective survivors of the group were the strongest members. We can also imagine that the strongest could and did take from the weakest. It is also likely the weaker took what they could from the stronger, even if it was only "leavings", to satisfy their needs.
But, need is relative. It depends on many factors. In the case of cave-men, it depended on the availability of food, an individual's size and/or appetite, the need to provide for mates and offspring, need to store reserves, and many other factors. It is not hard to imagine that, however primeval, different members of the group had different needs.
When these beings started to change their animalistic behavior, when they began to "think", there is a high likelihood that their thoughts related to their needs. At some point, those thoughts expanded to include opinions or judgments about the needs of other individuals in the group. The concepts of "good" and "bad" must have originated in this way.
At some point in the existence of cave-men, the weaker members of the community recognized that, since they did not have the strength to take from the stronger members by themselves, they needed the help of others if they were to survive. It would not have been difficult for the weaker members to recognize other members of the group who also suffered by their weakness. In some way, these weaker members combined to limit the domination of the stronger. That was the beginning of "civilization".
What is not stated, but must be recognized, is that the stronger members were members of the same group. They did not stand idly by and allow the weaker members to take from them. They participated in the formation of a solution. They used their strength to protect as much of what was "theirs" as they could. This laid the foundation for the concept of "ownership", and, by extension, the concept of "greed". Ownership was claimed by the strong and the attribution of greed was laid by the weak. This is the most important, but least acknowledged, aspect of the relationships which led to the origin and structure of civilization.
If this is a reasonable estimate of the origin of civilization, several things stand out:
1) Morality, or the concept of "good and bad", can not exist in the absence of intelligent thought. The squirrel, when he stores nuts for the winter, does not ask himself if he'd be wrong to store one more. If he finds another and feels the need for it, he takes it. For animals, there is no issue of good or bad, and the concept of "greed" does not exist. A moral sense is a mark of intelligence.
2) The driving force for the organization of society is the need to restrain the strongest members of the group. If the weaker members of the group do not feel threatened by the stronger, there is no need to organize.
3) The threat the weaker members of the original society felt had to result from deprivation of the resources needed for existence (probably food). If the stronger were perceived as taking more than they needed while the weaker suffered, that condition must have been characterized as "bad".
4) The mechanism society uses to restrict bad behavior is force. By definition, a weaker member can not control a stronger one. But, several weaker members, in unison, have enough power to control even the strongest. In this sense, civilization is a banding together of the members of a group to gain the strength needed to control members exhibiting "bad" behavior.
5) When discussing these relationships, we tend to use sophisticated terms to differentiate forms of undesirable behavior. Thus, we call the taking of more than one needs "greed". This tempts us to say civilization developed to limit greed. It is more likely the initial banding together mentioned above was to ensure the survival of the weaker members of the group rather than to penalize the stronger.
6) The role of civilization as a means of controlling excessive strength or power evolved over time. As the goods available for consumption expanded beyond rudimentary food, clothing and shelter, we see ample evidence that the more powerful acquired the surplus goods first. At the same time, they increased the sophistication of the ways they exercised their power to control what they considered "theirs". Reactively, the less powerful slowly developed ways to force broader distribution of the surplus goods. That process continues today.
Looked at this way, the concepts of good and bad can not exist for a single individual. They can only exist in terms of others. I was wrong to believe that humans are naturally good. At birth, they are neither. It's true some children are born with what is called a "bad" nature, but that is a judgment rendered by others. The infant, itself, has no concept of "good" or "bad".
For each of us, the idea of good and bad grows as we develop. Initially, we see those who gratify our wishes as good and those who deny us what we want as bad. But we soon realize good and bad are much more complex than that. We exist in a constant and ever-changing mixture of good and bad, starting with our parents who supply our needs (good) and control us (bad). The choices we make flow from our understanding of that mixture, influenced by our individual characteristics. The more powerful among us may consider actions good that are abhorrent to the less powerful, but they are neither good nor bad unless they affect others and their goodness or badness depend how they affect others.
That, it seems to me, is the essence of good and bad. It is also a fairly obvious statement of the human condition. While the foregoing was written in a search for the origin and nature of goodness, it painted a picture of the weaker members of the human race forcing civilized behavior on the stronger and the stronger members impeding the civilizing efforts of their weaker brethren as well as they could. I started out trying to derive a basis for believing that humans are naturally "good", a personal bias I wanted to justify. I failed. Instead, I found a basis for understanding why we can't trust our leaders.
But that seems to create a paradox: We must have leaders, and leaders, by their nature, must lead. We are properly taught from childhood to respect and revere our leaders. How can we square that with the notion that "we can't trust our leaders"? We can only do so when we recognize that there is a difference between "trust" and "blind trust". Even those who followed Alexander learned to put bounds on his ambition.
It has ever been so.
Persuasion
Persuasion is the art of causing someone to do something. It is a significant factor in politics.
In the past 200 years, elements of persuasion have been honed into the science of marketing, Those who reap the rewards of marketing use it to further their own interest, usually at the expense of those they persuade. One current manifestation is the marketing of politicians without regard for their character.
Our purpose here is to find ways to improve the quality of our political leaders. We seek to do that by harnessing our own natures to the election process. That requires that we consider the human characteristics likely to motivate the participants in the election process. We will do so by contemplating the likely attitudes of the people at the various levels of the Active Democracy process described earlier.
At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first time to select one member of a their group to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants:
1) those who do not want to be selected,
2) those willing to be selected, and
3) those seeking selection.
In any group where all three participants do not want to be selected, the triad will not make a selection and all three participants will be eliminated.
Thus, among the groups that actually make a selection, the people who are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person is somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to be selected.
For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical poles.
We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve may well be transformed into a person seeking public office:
[If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the group that (A) or (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because if A will not support B, the chance that A will be chosen increases.]
Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the second level will have one of two characteristics: either they seek public office or they are willing to serve in public office. In other words, either they persuaded the other members to select them or they allowed the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.
In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection must persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.
Whatever other qualities a person seeking office will have, we can assert with considerable confidence that two of them will be a desire for public office and persuasiveness. Our method of selecting public officials uses these traits; all three want the same thing and can only attain it by persuading the others to select them.
When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.
When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the persuader will become the persuaded.
Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because of the need for a definitive decision, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.
Fred
In the past 200 years, elements of persuasion have been honed into the science of marketing, Those who reap the rewards of marketing use it to further their own interest, usually at the expense of those they persuade. One current manifestation is the marketing of politicians without regard for their character.
Our purpose here is to find ways to improve the quality of our political leaders. We seek to do that by harnessing our own natures to the election process. That requires that we consider the human characteristics likely to motivate the participants in the election process. We will do so by contemplating the likely attitudes of the people at the various levels of the Active Democracy process described earlier.
At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first time to select one member of a their group to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants:
1) those who do not want to be selected,
2) those willing to be selected, and
3) those seeking selection.
In any group where all three participants do not want to be selected, the triad will not make a selection and all three participants will be eliminated.
Thus, among the groups that actually make a selection, the people who are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person is somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to be selected.
For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical poles.
We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve may well be transformed into a person seeking public office:
[If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the group that (A) or (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because if A will not support B, the chance that A will be chosen increases.]
Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the second level will have one of two characteristics: either they seek public office or they are willing to serve in public office. In other words, either they persuaded the other members to select them or they allowed the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.
In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection must persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.
Whatever other qualities a person seeking office will have, we can assert with considerable confidence that two of them will be a desire for public office and persuasiveness. Our method of selecting public officials uses these traits; all three want the same thing and can only attain it by persuading the others to select them.
When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.
When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the persuader will become the persuaded.
Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because of the need for a definitive decision, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.
Fred
Urbano's Design
We are searching for a better way to select the people who represent us in our government. A thoughtful person, writing as Urbano dela Cruz, has proposed an excellent method. He has all communities select members of the community to serve in a council. The council members select, from among themselves, those who advance to higher levels of government. The process looks something like this:
1) Communities select the members of a community council
2) Community council members appoint some of their members to a district council
3) (In urban areas)
District council members appoint some of their members to serve on a municipal council
Municipal council members appoint from their members:
District council members appoint some of their members to serve as provincial (or State) representatives
Provincial representatives appoint from their members:
Congressional representative appoint from their members:
Fred
1) Communities select the members of a community council
2) Community council members appoint some of their members to a district council
3) (In urban areas)
District council members appoint some of their members to serve on a municipal council
Municipal council members appoint from their members:
- A Mayor
- A Vice Mayor
District council members appoint some of their members to serve as provincial (or State) representatives
Provincial representatives appoint from their members:
- A Governor
- A Vice Governor
Congressional representative appoint from their members:
- A President
- A Vice President
- Appropriate number of Senators
Fred
Excessive Self-Interest
Thoughts devoted to improving the election process arise from dissatisfaction with the society fostered by our government. We want to select better representatives because we want to improve our lot. Reasoning our way through the causes and effects of our dissatisfaction is a complex and difficult task. Sometimes the search lets us view ourselves from an unfamiliar perspective.
For example, although I've never heard this view expressed by others, it seems a concept worth pondering:
"A society with no penalty for the excessive pursuit of self-interest is flawed".
When we think about the way societies develop, we should not be surprised that there are no such penalties. Those who lead the society are, by definition, those who pursue their self-interest most ardently. It would be unreasonable to expect such people to welcome restraints. Hence, the corollary:
"Penalizing the excessive pursuit of self-interest will not occur from the top down, it must flow from the bottom up."
History is replete with evidence that this is true, but we rarely think of societal problems from this perspective. When we do, we tend to act in a violent, explosive manner. We would be better served by focusing our attention on such glaring issues as the need to select better representatives before they inspire revolutionary fervor.
Fred
For example, although I've never heard this view expressed by others, it seems a concept worth pondering:
"A society with no penalty for the excessive pursuit of self-interest is flawed".
When we think about the way societies develop, we should not be surprised that there are no such penalties. Those who lead the society are, by definition, those who pursue their self-interest most ardently. It would be unreasonable to expect such people to welcome restraints. Hence, the corollary:
"Penalizing the excessive pursuit of self-interest will not occur from the top down, it must flow from the bottom up."
History is replete with evidence that this is true, but we rarely think of societal problems from this perspective. When we do, we tend to act in a violent, explosive manner. We would be better served by focusing our attention on such glaring issues as the need to select better representatives before they inspire revolutionary fervor.
Fred
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Deadlocks
Is there value in deadlocks in the Active Democracy process?
An acquaintance asked about the wisdom of disqualifying groups that become deadlocked, i.e., triads that are unable to select one of their members to represent the other two in the time allotted for their decision. It seems to me the potential for, and need to resolve, deadlocks is one of the strong points of Active Democracy. I would welcome other points of view, to broaden my perspective.
I think disqualifying deadlocks is a strong point because those who wish to become leaders, must, virtually by definition, have strong egos. As they advance they will encounter others with as strong a wish to advance as themselves. This should produce some intellectually intense confrontations.
The ability to make a selection depends on the characteristics of the participants. Traits we may anticipate in people with strong egos are various levels of obstinacy, persuasiveness. susceptibility to reason and willingness to compromise. These are important qualities, but whether or not their holders will make good leaders (and good public servants) depends on the mix.
If, for example, all three participants are so obstinate they will not act to break a deadlock ... they would rather go down than yield ... would we consider them potentially good leaders? From another perspective, if none of the participants is able to persuade the others that selection is preferable to disqualification, isn't it improbable that they would be good public officials?
There are other aspects. For one thing, above some level, the candidates are assured a public office. Maybe not the office they'd like, but an office in which they can demonstrate their excellence so they can advance further in the next succeeding election cycle. Since disqualification takes them out of the mix entirely there will be an added incentive to make a selection.
In my opinion, candidates that allow themselves to be deadlocked are unlikely to do a good job of representing our interests in our government. Contrary views are welcome.
Fred
An acquaintance asked about the wisdom of disqualifying groups that become deadlocked, i.e., triads that are unable to select one of their members to represent the other two in the time allotted for their decision. It seems to me the potential for, and need to resolve, deadlocks is one of the strong points of Active Democracy. I would welcome other points of view, to broaden my perspective.
I think disqualifying deadlocks is a strong point because those who wish to become leaders, must, virtually by definition, have strong egos. As they advance they will encounter others with as strong a wish to advance as themselves. This should produce some intellectually intense confrontations.
The ability to make a selection depends on the characteristics of the participants. Traits we may anticipate in people with strong egos are various levels of obstinacy, persuasiveness. susceptibility to reason and willingness to compromise. These are important qualities, but whether or not their holders will make good leaders (and good public servants) depends on the mix.
If, for example, all three participants are so obstinate they will not act to break a deadlock ... they would rather go down than yield ... would we consider them potentially good leaders? From another perspective, if none of the participants is able to persuade the others that selection is preferable to disqualification, isn't it improbable that they would be good public officials?
There are other aspects. For one thing, above some level, the candidates are assured a public office. Maybe not the office they'd like, but an office in which they can demonstrate their excellence so they can advance further in the next succeeding election cycle. Since disqualification takes them out of the mix entirely there will be an added incentive to make a selection.
In my opinion, candidates that allow themselves to be deadlocked are unlikely to do a good job of representing our interests in our government. Contrary views are welcome.
Fred
Ruling Class Danger
At various times, people have mentioned concerns about the Active Democracy concept (privately or in other forums) that should be examined. One such demur is:
"After 2-3 full cycles of the process, the turnover of individuals who consistently reach level 4 will diminish. There will then emerge a ruling class."
This concern arises because it happened with our two-party system. Party functionaries, who gave the party continuity, tended to acquire ever more power over the process. In the 200 years since the first establishment of political parties, these people have become a ruling class that now controls our parties ... and our nation.
The described concern is founded, in part, on the fact that the qualities required to advance in the Active Democracy process will tend to elevate the same type of people in each successive election, thus raising the specter that those people will, somehow, form a new cabal.
That is unlikely.
For one thing, the electorate is in a constant state of flux. People constantly enter and leave the electorate and people's desire to seek public office varies in intensity from complete disinterest to avid pursuit throughout their lives. These are not inconsequential matters. When coupled with the random selection of triad participants, they make the system dynamic at its lowest levels. That dynamism will propagate upward.
In such an atmosphere, the fact that the same type of people will advance in each successive election will tend to improve the system. When we select public officials using a process that favors the best of our people, and when the same kind of people are the ones most frequently advanced, people who seek office will copy them. Morality is a top-down phenomenon. We take our cues from those we wish to emulate.
In addition, given the dynamism of the method, I think it unlikely that those who reach level 4 will ever have a common view or objective. Quite the contrary. In the first place, the selection process is unlikely to group them in similar triads on a regular or dependable basis. Secondly, their prior experience will affect their selectability, favorably in some cases, unfavorably in others. Thirdly, they will have knowledge of the others that will affect how they relate to them. And, finally, at each level, two of three candidates will be eliminated. That will do more to break up "ruling class" aspirations than anything else.
Fred
"After 2-3 full cycles of the process, the turnover of individuals who consistently reach level 4 will diminish. There will then emerge a ruling class."
This concern arises because it happened with our two-party system. Party functionaries, who gave the party continuity, tended to acquire ever more power over the process. In the 200 years since the first establishment of political parties, these people have become a ruling class that now controls our parties ... and our nation.
The described concern is founded, in part, on the fact that the qualities required to advance in the Active Democracy process will tend to elevate the same type of people in each successive election, thus raising the specter that those people will, somehow, form a new cabal.
That is unlikely.
For one thing, the electorate is in a constant state of flux. People constantly enter and leave the electorate and people's desire to seek public office varies in intensity from complete disinterest to avid pursuit throughout their lives. These are not inconsequential matters. When coupled with the random selection of triad participants, they make the system dynamic at its lowest levels. That dynamism will propagate upward.
In such an atmosphere, the fact that the same type of people will advance in each successive election will tend to improve the system. When we select public officials using a process that favors the best of our people, and when the same kind of people are the ones most frequently advanced, people who seek office will copy them. Morality is a top-down phenomenon. We take our cues from those we wish to emulate.
In addition, given the dynamism of the method, I think it unlikely that those who reach level 4 will ever have a common view or objective. Quite the contrary. In the first place, the selection process is unlikely to group them in similar triads on a regular or dependable basis. Secondly, their prior experience will affect their selectability, favorably in some cases, unfavorably in others. Thirdly, they will have knowledge of the others that will affect how they relate to them. And, finally, at each level, two of three candidates will be eliminated. That will do more to break up "ruling class" aspirations than anything else.
Fred
Opting Out
The following is adapted from comments to me, privately or in other forums, expressing concerns about the Active Democracy concept. One comment was to the effect that ...
(so)
(In addition, this person thinks)
The essence of this comment is the wish to opt out at the lowest level and still influence selections at higher levels. Since others (duly elevated on their merits) make the selections at the higher levels, this person feels the process is oligarchical. (I dealt with oligarchy in the previous post and will not expand on that, right now)
Reaching public office is not the only reason for participating in the process. Participation is how we do our utmost to improve the quality of our elected representatives.
When one wishes to disenfranchise oneself by opting out of the process, the obvious penalty for doing so is the inability to influence the result. This is as true in political action as it is in any other form of endeavor. It is important to remember that authority and responsibility are inseparable. If one wants the authority to influence a result, one has the responsibility to participate in the process.
We are free to opt out whenever we choose, but, by doing so, we renounce our right to further influence the proceedings. If we are concerned about the selections made at higher levels, the process gives us an opportunity to make our presence felt. If we participate to the best of our ability and reach a point where our participation ends, we have done as much as our talent and disposition allow.
Fred
"... I have no desire for (public office). Accordingly, I would dissuade the citizens with whom I am pooled in the first round from voting for me."
(so)
"In the proposed system, I would be denied the right to consider/select any person other than the two selected for my triplet in the first round."
(In addition, this person thinks)
"This form of governance (Active Democracy) is known as an oligarchy not a democracy, despite the illusory trappings of democracy during the first round."
The essence of this comment is the wish to opt out at the lowest level and still influence selections at higher levels. Since others (duly elevated on their merits) make the selections at the higher levels, this person feels the process is oligarchical. (I dealt with oligarchy in the previous post and will not expand on that, right now)
Reaching public office is not the only reason for participating in the process. Participation is how we do our utmost to improve the quality of our elected representatives.
When one wishes to disenfranchise oneself by opting out of the process, the obvious penalty for doing so is the inability to influence the result. This is as true in political action as it is in any other form of endeavor. It is important to remember that authority and responsibility are inseparable. If one wants the authority to influence a result, one has the responsibility to participate in the process.
We are free to opt out whenever we choose, but, by doing so, we renounce our right to further influence the proceedings. If we are concerned about the selections made at higher levels, the process gives us an opportunity to make our presence felt. If we participate to the best of our ability and reach a point where our participation ends, we have done as much as our talent and disposition allow.
Fred
Citizenship Tax (1)
The adverse effects of the immense growth of corporate power over the past 150 years have been described elsewhere, including by Stephanie Blankenburg and Dan Plesch writing on the Open Democracy site. Less has been said about practical ways to curb that growth.
The central problem is that our society has no penalty for greed, and "a society with no penalty for greed is flawed."
Greed is an extension of the pursuit of self-interest. It is not an evil we can address objectively. If we are to inhibit it, we must do so indirectly. What I write here will describe a method of harnessing our natural pursuit of our own interest and changing it from a destructive force to a productive one,
Self-interest is part of self-preservation and "Self-preservation is the first law of nature". It applies to all organisms, living or corporate. The methods of self-preservation vary, and are generally applauded as "survival of the fittest". However, it can be shown that, carried to extremes, self-preservation is destructive of the preserved entity's environment. Beneficial though Darwinism may be in a purely theoretical sense, if our society is the environment being destroyed, we must do what we can to prevent it.
Societies restrain undesirable characteristics by a variety of forces. They initially deal with excesses by parental guidance, disapproval, peer pressure, appeal to conscience, excommunication and other non-physical methods. If these fail, it condemns the act by mandate and authorizes a force to control it. A central feature of the process is identification of the characteristic to be restrained.
These mechanisms work until a rogue is able to influence the forces society creates to control it. Since I'm discussing our tendency to pursue our own self-interest, I'll focus on the rogues who carry that pursuit to extremes.
By far, a rogues' most effective means of evading control is by influencing those who make the rules intended to control them, to render legislation ineffective or to divert its impact. Evidence of the abuses assault us daily. We constantly get fresh examples of the manipulation of our governing and regulatory bodies. Our subdued reaction to such events may be due to our recognition that they are simply additional evidence of our natural venality. In any case, we accept them without considering whether there is a way to make them less productive for their purveyors and less destructive for us.
While one may recognize the existence of rogues after they have achieved rogue stature, we have no mechanism for penalizing them or inhibiting their greed before it becomes intolerable. However much we are offended by what we perceive as greed, the basis of our complaint is always subjective.
Our traditional way of dealing with rogues in society requires that they be identified, so the lack of an objective measure, the inability to point a finger and say so-and-so is a rogue, seems to present an insoluble problem. That's not exactly true. We may not be able to point a finger at a specific target, but we can certainly recognize the characteristics rogues share and the circumstances under which they thrive.
One quality the most destructive rogues have in common is great size. This, too, seems to present a paradox: The achievement of great size springs from the best of human capabilities. Size is attained by talent and can't be criticised simply because it reaches some specific extent. It is the result of a natural pursuit of self-interest, which, over time, becomes synonymous with self-preservation.
Thus we have a conflict: Size is achieved through ability but the beneficial effect of the enterprise evaporates when growth is unfettered. As entities grow into rogues they believe their best interests are attained at the expense of the community rather than in harmony with it. As they grow, they target the wealth of communities, and suck it out, leaving an empty husk.
Our attempts to control cancerous growth fail because we try to outlaw identifiable evils. Such laws are easily subverted. The larger the enterprise, the greater the pool of talent available to devise the methods of subversion. The result is behemoths which have a vacuum cleaner effect, sucking up resources to the detriment of our communities and our citizens.
To summarize, we know that rogues exist and we know they are injurious to the humans among us. Yet, after carefully looking at the matter, we find that the entities we call rogues started out by being very good at what they do. If we had their pool of talent, we might evolve the same way ourselves.
Hence, the conflict: On the one hand, we seek excellence and applaud success. On the other, these conditions, unrestrained, breed rogues. How can we resolve this? How can we constrain the rogue while encouraging excellence and success?
The most direct way is to make excessive size a burden.
When we think about preventing excessive size, we run into the fact that some businesses must be large. Public utilities, for example, require a huge infrastructure and great gobs of capital. Hence, although rogues tend to have great size, great size may not identify a rogue. So, our solution to the problem must focus on unwarranted size. It must not injure large entities whose size is dictated by necessity.
Growth requires nutrients on which to feed. For corporate growth, the nutrients are the availability of physical and human resources and an environment conducive to growth. In the United States, the resources are a wealth of raw materials and human assets; the environment is provided by our government. The use, or exploitation, of these assets is what allows inordinate corporate growth.
Viewed in this light, we can see that growth flows from citizenship. If an entity is to grow, the society in which it functions must allow growth, so we can say that entities grow as a direct result of their citizenship.
We have seen that growth is, by definition, exploitive. This is not to say that exploitation is an evil. It only becomes an evil when it is excessive. Entities grow by exploiting the nutrients in its environment. That is precisely the goal our society seeks to attain. It can not be condemned simply because it exploits the environment. However, unrestrained exploitation results in excesses. If we are to control the excesses, we must have a means to discriminate between justifiable size and unwarranted growth.
Fortunately, we have a simple, readily available measuring stick. The best measure of size is the total revenue an entity receives in a specified period of time. (I use the term "revenue" to mean the annual gross receipts of an entity, without reserve or allowance, less amounts paid to external vendors in which the entity has no managerial, directorial or financial interest of any amount or kind.) We can say, objectively, that the more revenue an entity generates, the larger it is. This is not a subjective opinion, it is a verifiable fact.
The central problem is that our society has no penalty for greed, and "a society with no penalty for greed is flawed."
Greed is an extension of the pursuit of self-interest. It is not an evil we can address objectively. If we are to inhibit it, we must do so indirectly. What I write here will describe a method of harnessing our natural pursuit of our own interest and changing it from a destructive force to a productive one,
Self-interest is part of self-preservation and "Self-preservation is the first law of nature". It applies to all organisms, living or corporate. The methods of self-preservation vary, and are generally applauded as "survival of the fittest". However, it can be shown that, carried to extremes, self-preservation is destructive of the preserved entity's environment. Beneficial though Darwinism may be in a purely theoretical sense, if our society is the environment being destroyed, we must do what we can to prevent it.
Societies restrain undesirable characteristics by a variety of forces. They initially deal with excesses by parental guidance, disapproval, peer pressure, appeal to conscience, excommunication and other non-physical methods. If these fail, it condemns the act by mandate and authorizes a force to control it. A central feature of the process is identification of the characteristic to be restrained.
These mechanisms work until a rogue is able to influence the forces society creates to control it. Since I'm discussing our tendency to pursue our own self-interest, I'll focus on the rogues who carry that pursuit to extremes.
By far, a rogues' most effective means of evading control is by influencing those who make the rules intended to control them, to render legislation ineffective or to divert its impact. Evidence of the abuses assault us daily. We constantly get fresh examples of the manipulation of our governing and regulatory bodies. Our subdued reaction to such events may be due to our recognition that they are simply additional evidence of our natural venality. In any case, we accept them without considering whether there is a way to make them less productive for their purveyors and less destructive for us.
While one may recognize the existence of rogues after they have achieved rogue stature, we have no mechanism for penalizing them or inhibiting their greed before it becomes intolerable. However much we are offended by what we perceive as greed, the basis of our complaint is always subjective.
Our traditional way of dealing with rogues in society requires that they be identified, so the lack of an objective measure, the inability to point a finger and say so-and-so is a rogue, seems to present an insoluble problem. That's not exactly true. We may not be able to point a finger at a specific target, but we can certainly recognize the characteristics rogues share and the circumstances under which they thrive.
One quality the most destructive rogues have in common is great size. This, too, seems to present a paradox: The achievement of great size springs from the best of human capabilities. Size is attained by talent and can't be criticised simply because it reaches some specific extent. It is the result of a natural pursuit of self-interest, which, over time, becomes synonymous with self-preservation.
Thus we have a conflict: Size is achieved through ability but the beneficial effect of the enterprise evaporates when growth is unfettered. As entities grow into rogues they believe their best interests are attained at the expense of the community rather than in harmony with it. As they grow, they target the wealth of communities, and suck it out, leaving an empty husk.
Our attempts to control cancerous growth fail because we try to outlaw identifiable evils. Such laws are easily subverted. The larger the enterprise, the greater the pool of talent available to devise the methods of subversion. The result is behemoths which have a vacuum cleaner effect, sucking up resources to the detriment of our communities and our citizens.
To summarize, we know that rogues exist and we know they are injurious to the humans among us. Yet, after carefully looking at the matter, we find that the entities we call rogues started out by being very good at what they do. If we had their pool of talent, we might evolve the same way ourselves.
Hence, the conflict: On the one hand, we seek excellence and applaud success. On the other, these conditions, unrestrained, breed rogues. How can we resolve this? How can we constrain the rogue while encouraging excellence and success?
The most direct way is to make excessive size a burden.
When we think about preventing excessive size, we run into the fact that some businesses must be large. Public utilities, for example, require a huge infrastructure and great gobs of capital. Hence, although rogues tend to have great size, great size may not identify a rogue. So, our solution to the problem must focus on unwarranted size. It must not injure large entities whose size is dictated by necessity.
Growth requires nutrients on which to feed. For corporate growth, the nutrients are the availability of physical and human resources and an environment conducive to growth. In the United States, the resources are a wealth of raw materials and human assets; the environment is provided by our government. The use, or exploitation, of these assets is what allows inordinate corporate growth.
Viewed in this light, we can see that growth flows from citizenship. If an entity is to grow, the society in which it functions must allow growth, so we can say that entities grow as a direct result of their citizenship.
We have seen that growth is, by definition, exploitive. This is not to say that exploitation is an evil. It only becomes an evil when it is excessive. Entities grow by exploiting the nutrients in its environment. That is precisely the goal our society seeks to attain. It can not be condemned simply because it exploits the environment. However, unrestrained exploitation results in excesses. If we are to control the excesses, we must have a means to discriminate between justifiable size and unwarranted growth.
Fortunately, we have a simple, readily available measuring stick. The best measure of size is the total revenue an entity receives in a specified period of time. (I use the term "revenue" to mean the annual gross receipts of an entity, without reserve or allowance, less amounts paid to external vendors in which the entity has no managerial, directorial or financial interest of any amount or kind.) We can say, objectively, that the more revenue an entity generates, the larger it is. This is not a subjective opinion, it is a verifiable fact.
Citizenship Tax (2)
To recap, we assert that
1) Growth is a quality we seek, applaud and reward.
2) Growth entails exploitation of the available resources.
3) At some indefinable point, an entity's growth, if unchecked, becomes a detriment to the society which spawned it.
4) The only guide we have to measure the extent to which an entity exploits our resources is its revenue.
Thus, it is appropriate to levy a progressive charge, based on revenue, for an entity's use of our resources. We can call this progressive charge "A Citizenship Tax".
The Citizenship Tax is a levy assessed on the revenue of an entity, cited in terms of annual receipts. The progressive nature of the tax requires a standard base. We will use the gross receipts (revenue) of the entity, annualized, to provide that base.
The Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the source of an enterprise's revenue. The tax applies whether the revenue results from the operation of the entity or the sale of its assets. The only criteria is that the enterprise receive the revenue (or its equivalent, as in the case of a swap). If an entity has extensive assets in cash, real estate, equity, or in any other form, the Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the value of those assets. However, when an asset is disposed of, in whatever manner or form, the value of the asset is part of the entity's revenue for the period.
The Citizenship Tax is not concerned with the profitability of the enterprise. It is a fee we levy for affording our citizens the right to use our resources. The charge is for the extent of the exploitation, not for the degree of success an entity has in doing so. Whether or not the enterprise is profitable does not change the amount of resources it exploits in its operation.
The Citizenship Tax is progressive. As revenue increases, the tax rate increases. As will be seen in the tax table below, the tax is insignificant for small entities. As an enterprise grows, its tax load increases, but the load only becomes burdensome for rogues.
Taxes are an expense of doing business. They increase the cost of doing business, and that cost is added to all other costs to determine the price of the enterprise's goods and services. In other words, taxes are always passed on to the consumer. When a rogue attains an unwarranted size by manipulating the rules in its own favor or dominating its competitors to the detriment of the public, The Citizenship Tax adds a cost to its operation.
The wonderful thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it is utterly and completely objective. It makes no judgment about the goodness or badness of the taxed entity. It simply charges all enterprises for their use of society's resources.
If, by the nature of its business, an enterprise must be large, it is not injured by The Citizenship Tax because all competing businesses must attain a similar size. However, when a rogue grows beyond an economically justifiable size, the tax acts to protect the public interest without additional regulation.
Corporate growth is good, and healthy, and desireable. We want to give our entrepreneurs the freedom to grow. That is the way they enrich our lives. The Citizenship Tax supports this goal because it is absolutely even-handed. It makes no judgment about the excesses of an enterprise. It is absolutely and totally objective in its application, and in its effect.
If an entity grows to a size that exceeds its value to the society, The Citizenship Tax acts as an umbrella, increasing the rogue's cost of operation and giving its competitors a cost advantage which prevents their suffocation. In fact, The Citizenship Tax would enhance the viability of competition, immeasurably.
Even at inception, The Citizenship Tax is gentle in its effect. Each entity can meet the tax in its own way. Some (like those which have subsumed suppliers or competitors) may elect to spin those entities off, to resize their operations to a smaller tax base. The option is theirs.
Brief Recap To This Point:
-------------------------
1) An entity exists in an environment and may be said to be a citizen of that environment.
2) The size of an entity is evidence of the extent to which that entity exploits the environment in which it exists.
3) Entities are dynamic and exist in a dynamic environment. (They expand and contract in response to internal pressures and the expansion and contraction of their environment)
4) I have postulated that excessive size is bad, but, because of the dynamic nature of the entities and their environment, it is not possible to make a judgment that a given size is good or bad. Stated another way, size is a method of description. In itself, it is neither good nor bad.
5) While I believe in free markets, I do not believe that self-interest, exercised without regard for the welfare of the environment which nurtures it, constitutes a free market. On the contrary, carried to its logical extreme, self-interest protects and extends itself by dominating its environment ... the antithesis of a free market.
7) The most readily available device we have for measuring the size of an entity is the total number of dollars it takes in by reason of its existence (i.e., its gross receipts)
8) Since size denotes the extent to which an entity exploits our resources, it is appropriate to levy a charge for that exploitation. Such a charge is the only practical way to to identify and restrain excessive size. The charge must accommodate the concept that size, per se, is not an evil.
THE CITIZENSHIP TAX
The Citizenship Tax is levied on the absolute gross receipts of an entity, from all sources and for all amounts received in its name by entities it controls. (i.e., franchises). The tax is progressive. Assuming a base rate of 2%, 2% is added to the rate each time the receipts increase by one decimal position, thus:
The tax rate increases proportionally from one order of magnitude to the next (for example, going from $10 billion to $100 billion receipts).
An intended side effect of The Citizenship Tax is that it makes inflation unacceptable. The more roguish an enterprise is, the more "pricing power" it has. The evils of inflation are reserved for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. Humans never have "pricing power".
The most striking thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it harnesses a human trait ... the pursuit of self-interest ... in a productive way.
Fred
1) Growth is a quality we seek, applaud and reward.
2) Growth entails exploitation of the available resources.
3) At some indefinable point, an entity's growth, if unchecked, becomes a detriment to the society which spawned it.
4) The only guide we have to measure the extent to which an entity exploits our resources is its revenue.
Thus, it is appropriate to levy a progressive charge, based on revenue, for an entity's use of our resources. We can call this progressive charge "A Citizenship Tax".
The Citizenship Tax is a levy assessed on the revenue of an entity, cited in terms of annual receipts. The progressive nature of the tax requires a standard base. We will use the gross receipts (revenue) of the entity, annualized, to provide that base.
The Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the source of an enterprise's revenue. The tax applies whether the revenue results from the operation of the entity or the sale of its assets. The only criteria is that the enterprise receive the revenue (or its equivalent, as in the case of a swap). If an entity has extensive assets in cash, real estate, equity, or in any other form, the Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the value of those assets. However, when an asset is disposed of, in whatever manner or form, the value of the asset is part of the entity's revenue for the period.
The Citizenship Tax is not concerned with the profitability of the enterprise. It is a fee we levy for affording our citizens the right to use our resources. The charge is for the extent of the exploitation, not for the degree of success an entity has in doing so. Whether or not the enterprise is profitable does not change the amount of resources it exploits in its operation.
The Citizenship Tax is progressive. As revenue increases, the tax rate increases. As will be seen in the tax table below, the tax is insignificant for small entities. As an enterprise grows, its tax load increases, but the load only becomes burdensome for rogues.
Taxes are an expense of doing business. They increase the cost of doing business, and that cost is added to all other costs to determine the price of the enterprise's goods and services. In other words, taxes are always passed on to the consumer. When a rogue attains an unwarranted size by manipulating the rules in its own favor or dominating its competitors to the detriment of the public, The Citizenship Tax adds a cost to its operation.
The wonderful thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it is utterly and completely objective. It makes no judgment about the goodness or badness of the taxed entity. It simply charges all enterprises for their use of society's resources.
If, by the nature of its business, an enterprise must be large, it is not injured by The Citizenship Tax because all competing businesses must attain a similar size. However, when a rogue grows beyond an economically justifiable size, the tax acts to protect the public interest without additional regulation.
Corporate growth is good, and healthy, and desireable. We want to give our entrepreneurs the freedom to grow. That is the way they enrich our lives. The Citizenship Tax supports this goal because it is absolutely even-handed. It makes no judgment about the excesses of an enterprise. It is absolutely and totally objective in its application, and in its effect.
If an entity grows to a size that exceeds its value to the society, The Citizenship Tax acts as an umbrella, increasing the rogue's cost of operation and giving its competitors a cost advantage which prevents their suffocation. In fact, The Citizenship Tax would enhance the viability of competition, immeasurably.
Even at inception, The Citizenship Tax is gentle in its effect. Each entity can meet the tax in its own way. Some (like those which have subsumed suppliers or competitors) may elect to spin those entities off, to resize their operations to a smaller tax base. The option is theirs.
Brief Recap To This Point:
-------------------------
1) An entity exists in an environment and may be said to be a citizen of that environment.
2) The size of an entity is evidence of the extent to which that entity exploits the environment in which it exists.
3) Entities are dynamic and exist in a dynamic environment. (They expand and contract in response to internal pressures and the expansion and contraction of their environment)
4) I have postulated that excessive size is bad, but, because of the dynamic nature of the entities and their environment, it is not possible to make a judgment that a given size is good or bad. Stated another way, size is a method of description. In itself, it is neither good nor bad.
5) While I believe in free markets, I do not believe that self-interest, exercised without regard for the welfare of the environment which nurtures it, constitutes a free market. On the contrary, carried to its logical extreme, self-interest protects and extends itself by dominating its environment ... the antithesis of a free market.
7) The most readily available device we have for measuring the size of an entity is the total number of dollars it takes in by reason of its existence (i.e., its gross receipts)
8) Since size denotes the extent to which an entity exploits our resources, it is appropriate to levy a charge for that exploitation. Such a charge is the only practical way to to identify and restrain excessive size. The charge must accommodate the concept that size, per se, is not an evil.
THE CITIZENSHIP TAX
The Citizenship Tax is levied on the absolute gross receipts of an entity, from all sources and for all amounts received in its name by entities it controls. (i.e., franchises). The tax is progressive. Assuming a base rate of 2%, 2% is added to the rate each time the receipts increase by one decimal position, thus:
| Annual Gross Receipts $10 $100 $1,000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $100,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 $100,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000,000 $100,000,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000,000,000 $100,000,000,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000,000,000,000 $100,000,000,000,000,000,000 | Tax Rate 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% |
The tax rate increases proportionally from one order of magnitude to the next (for example, going from $10 billion to $100 billion receipts).
An intended side effect of The Citizenship Tax is that it makes inflation unacceptable. The more roguish an enterprise is, the more "pricing power" it has. The evils of inflation are reserved for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. Humans never have "pricing power".
The most striking thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it harnesses a human trait ... the pursuit of self-interest ... in a productive way.
Fred
Screening Politicians
Political parties maintain their stranglehold on our nation's political activity with a very simple mechanism: They monitor those who seek a career in politics. They watch them and groom them as they climb the ladder to political power. They choose politicians who have no problem sacrificing their honor for the benefit of the party and lift them through the ranks to the highest public offices.
Those who refuse to compromise their own integrity are simply passed over. The people of the community, who know they are honest, will keep them in the town council, but if they don't "play ball" with the party, the party never gives them the support they need to reach higher elective office.
There's no mystery about it. It's common sense. The party demands that the politician put party interest above all else. Those who want a career in politics are taught that it's the "Party Way or the Highway". They learn, very quickly, that there's no reward for pride and principle. Once they accept that, those who advance promptly learn the tricks of their trade; they learn how to lie convincingly, how to evade questions, how to obfuscate issues and how to deceive the public.
The amazing thing is that, even though we all know "that's the way it works", we continue to let the political parties victimize us. Since we know these people are cheats and liars, why do we let those who control our political parties "sell" candidates to us? Why do we not make the candidates prove their right to represent us?
Employers filling critical jobs don't rely on the recommendations of their competitors. Why, then, do we continue to elect public officials based on nothing more than the hogwash spewed by the very people who benefit most from hoodwinking us?
If we want a better government, we must do what the parties do. We must subject applicants for public office (the candidates) to a rigorous screening process. In my opinion, that is best done by making the candidates compete among themselves for selection. They are the most motivated to expose the hypocrites and charlatans. If this does not appeal to you, propose a better idea.
Don't just sit there ... THINK!!
Fred
Those who refuse to compromise their own integrity are simply passed over. The people of the community, who know they are honest, will keep them in the town council, but if they don't "play ball" with the party, the party never gives them the support they need to reach higher elective office.
There's no mystery about it. It's common sense. The party demands that the politician put party interest above all else. Those who want a career in politics are taught that it's the "Party Way or the Highway". They learn, very quickly, that there's no reward for pride and principle. Once they accept that, those who advance promptly learn the tricks of their trade; they learn how to lie convincingly, how to evade questions, how to obfuscate issues and how to deceive the public.
The amazing thing is that, even though we all know "that's the way it works", we continue to let the political parties victimize us. Since we know these people are cheats and liars, why do we let those who control our political parties "sell" candidates to us? Why do we not make the candidates prove their right to represent us?
Employers filling critical jobs don't rely on the recommendations of their competitors. Why, then, do we continue to elect public officials based on nothing more than the hogwash spewed by the very people who benefit most from hoodwinking us?
If we want a better government, we must do what the parties do. We must subject applicants for public office (the candidates) to a rigorous screening process. In my opinion, that is best done by making the candidates compete among themselves for selection. They are the most motivated to expose the hypocrites and charlatans. If this does not appeal to you, propose a better idea.
Don't just sit there ... THINK!!
Fred
Political Apathy
In America, we have reached the stage where letters to the editor and op-ed pieces make us feel as if we are whistling in a typhoon. They make us feel as though no-one is listening. It's not true, but we feel that way because there is no mechanism to pursue the topics we raise. If the material we write touches 10,000 souls in our community, there is no way for us to organize those 10,000 souls to rally in support of change. (This is not to say that rabble-rousers and unions don't instigate rallies. They do, but those are special interest events. They are not intended to advance the public interest.)
I believe that years ago ... many, many years ago ... letters to the editor were heeded by politicians. I'm quite sure someone, somewhere, calculated a relationship between a letter to the editor and the number of voters who shared the author's view. I think, in those days, the formula guided legislators.
Over time, as radio and then television became more effective at manipulating voter response, and polls grew more sophisticated, such outmoded means of political guidance fell by the wayside. I suspect letters to the editor are now viewed as a grounding mechanism; a means of letting voters vent their spleen. The result of this transition is a growing sense of alienation and ineffectiveness.
I have absolutely no doubt that most of us want to find solutions to our political problems, but there are several reasons why we are unable to do so:
If we've given someone the job of handling those matters for us ...
If we have no choices anyway ...
What can we do?
NOTHING!!!
... and that's what we do.
Fred
I believe that years ago ... many, many years ago ... letters to the editor were heeded by politicians. I'm quite sure someone, somewhere, calculated a relationship between a letter to the editor and the number of voters who shared the author's view. I think, in those days, the formula guided legislators.
Over time, as radio and then television became more effective at manipulating voter response, and polls grew more sophisticated, such outmoded means of political guidance fell by the wayside. I suspect letters to the editor are now viewed as a grounding mechanism; a means of letting voters vent their spleen. The result of this transition is a growing sense of alienation and ineffectiveness.
I have absolutely no doubt that most of us want to find solutions to our political problems, but there are several reasons why we are unable to do so:
- Thinking is hard work. It is difficult to meet the economic demands of our lives and also concentrate on political solutions. I've been told by political science professors that, even though they describe the failures in our political system in their lectures, they are too busy with their families to contemplate solutions to the failures they describe. (I felt they "should" make such an effort because they are considered our intellectual leaders in the field of political science ... I now realize I was wrong. My expectation was unreasonable. The fact that they are college professors does not make them any different than a truck driver or a machinist or a farmer. Their goal is to get from day to day. Those, like me, who expect them to do more are unrealistic and ideological nincompoops.)
- We trust. We hire (elect) people to handle political matters for us. We not only expect them to do so, we believe they will. However much we lament the blatant corruption in our government and the bad laws that come out of our legislatures, we rarely think "our guy" is responsible. We find it difficult to understand that corrupt practices could not exist nor bad laws get passed if "our guy" did not condone them.
- We have no options. The parties control every aspect of our political existence. We are inundated with pap and nonsense intended to establish or re-establish control of our government by one political party or another. What could be more pathetic than the political choices available to our people? When a candidates' greatest claim to fame is cynicism, we are all losers.
If we've given someone the job of handling those matters for us ...
If we have no choices anyway ...
What can we do?
NOTHING!!!
... and that's what we do.
Fred
More On Groups Of Five
Roy offered the following comment. which I'm bringing to the "upper" level to be sure it's visible to casual passersby:
I cannot, at first sight, see anything against groups of five and it would seem to negate the fears of Urbano.
The groups are still small enough to enable face-to-face meetings with little effort or expense.
In addition, groups of five reduces the number of levels in the process, speeding things up and possibly being cheaper.
I'd like to hear your take on this Fred.
Regards
Roy
Good Morning, Roy
The reason I prefer groups of three to groups of five is to reduce extraneous psychological pressure on the participants. People are influenced by other people. The larger the group, the less some individuals in the group will be able to function at their best. In an effort to illustrate the basis for my concern, I'm going to cite the observations of two noted professors:
1) "What I call 'internal' exclusion refers to the way that some people's ideas and social perspectives are likely to dominate discussion and decision making even when a forum has diversity in the room. There are a whole set of practical norms about what 'proper' speaking involves that are biased against people with accents, not to mention people who don't speak the dominant language --- and biased against people who speak in a high voice or softly, biased against people who express themselves emotionally or haltingly, and so on."
2) "... a lot of the psychological literature, summarized by Tali Mendleberg, reveals the tendency of small groups to press for consensus in ways that tend to silence potential dissenters."
3) "An early and famous psychological experiment, the Asch experiment, showed that people were likely even to doubt the evidence of their own senses ... when confronted with a unanimous group of other people saying that what they perceived was wrong ..."
The point is, the larger the group the greater these pressures on some members of the group. Conversely, the smaller the group, the more freely each member will contribute. Our goal is to seek the best among ourselves, so it behooves us to do all we can to encourage everyone to participate to the maximum of their ability. The smaller the group and the longer the exposure of the members of the group to each other, the smaller the impact these adverse effects will have on the participants.
On the other hand, as Roy points out, groups of five would speed the process somewhat. In the final analysis, group size will be set by the implementors of the concept. Implementation should be preceded by sets of experiments and testing to establish the optimum conditions.
Fred
Footnote: The citations above are taken from a set of questions Archon Fung, an associate professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, posed to Iris Marion Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago (until her death on August 1st, 2006) and Jane Mansbridge, Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University. The purpose of the discourse as to examine participatory and deliberative democracy. The material I cited above was taken out of that context. The questions and the responses provide interesting insight into participatory democracy in their own right, and are worthy of serious consideration. They are available at:
http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungDeliberationDarkNCR04.pdf
I cannot, at first sight, see anything against groups of five and it would seem to negate the fears of Urbano.
The groups are still small enough to enable face-to-face meetings with little effort or expense.
In addition, groups of five reduces the number of levels in the process, speeding things up and possibly being cheaper.
I'd like to hear your take on this Fred.
Regards
Roy
Good Morning, Roy
The reason I prefer groups of three to groups of five is to reduce extraneous psychological pressure on the participants. People are influenced by other people. The larger the group, the less some individuals in the group will be able to function at their best. In an effort to illustrate the basis for my concern, I'm going to cite the observations of two noted professors:
1) "What I call 'internal' exclusion refers to the way that some people's ideas and social perspectives are likely to dominate discussion and decision making even when a forum has diversity in the room. There are a whole set of practical norms about what 'proper' speaking involves that are biased against people with accents, not to mention people who don't speak the dominant language --- and biased against people who speak in a high voice or softly, biased against people who express themselves emotionally or haltingly, and so on."
2) "... a lot of the psychological literature, summarized by Tali Mendleberg, reveals the tendency of small groups to press for consensus in ways that tend to silence potential dissenters."
3) "An early and famous psychological experiment, the Asch experiment, showed that people were likely even to doubt the evidence of their own senses ... when confronted with a unanimous group of other people saying that what they perceived was wrong ..."
The point is, the larger the group the greater these pressures on some members of the group. Conversely, the smaller the group, the more freely each member will contribute. Our goal is to seek the best among ourselves, so it behooves us to do all we can to encourage everyone to participate to the maximum of their ability. The smaller the group and the longer the exposure of the members of the group to each other, the smaller the impact these adverse effects will have on the participants.
On the other hand, as Roy points out, groups of five would speed the process somewhat. In the final analysis, group size will be set by the implementors of the concept. Implementation should be preceded by sets of experiments and testing to establish the optimum conditions.
Fred
Footnote: The citations above are taken from a set of questions Archon Fung, an associate professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, posed to Iris Marion Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago (until her death on August 1st, 2006) and Jane Mansbridge, Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University. The purpose of the discourse as to examine participatory and deliberative democracy. The material I cited above was taken out of that context. The questions and the responses provide interesting insight into participatory democracy in their own right, and are worthy of serious consideration. They are available at:
http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungDeliberationDarkNCR04.pdf
Gerrymandering
Frank Mcenulty, an independent candidate for President of the United States, described (in another forum) one of the gimmicks politicians use to maintain their stranglehold on the political process in our country. This scheme affects him directly, and we ignore his plight at our peril.
When expressing his support for term limits in a discussion about the way to select the best-qualified candidates to serve in government, Mr. Mcenulty said, "... in addition to term limits we desperately need to have congressional districts honestly drawn. It is almost impossible to vote out an incumbent or get an official from a different party elected because of how districts are gerrymandered ...". He followed this by saying (and I agree), "Term limits are important, but gerrymandering is just outright fraud against the voters."
The laws that strangle us exist at the state level because there are no express prohibitions in our Constitution to prevent the states from making laws governing the electoral process. Political parties entered the vacuum afforded by our Constitution and enacted ... at the state level ... the rules which limit our ability to select our own candidates or control our own governments.
When those who seek political power are allowed to write the rules by which that power is attained, it is unwise to imagine altruism will be their motivating force. In these circumstances, gerrymandering and all the other manifestations of corruption that engulf us are inevitable. When we let parties control our political processes, we are foolish to expect them to act in a principled manner.
We have a failed political system because we allowed politicians to bastardize our political system to serve their own ends. The depth of that bastardization is astounding. It is certainly not limited to gerrymandering. It pervades the entire fabric of politics from rules for caucuses, primaries and conventions to rules that allow riders on our public laws. The system is powerful and it's deeply entrenched.
Our only recourse is to rally enough support to force the various states to abolish the party-preferential regulations that prevent the American people from governing themselves. Attempts to clean it up must come before our state legislatures, and they have a long history of rendering such cleansing ineffective while misleading the public with lip-service to "cleaning house". Working through the 50 state legislatures is a non-trivial task, but it must be done.
Correcting the serious problems in our political system is a daunting prospect. Doing so without recourse to self-defeating violence will test our intellect and our resolve. I'm certain we can accomplish the task, but I'm not sure how long it's going to take.
Fred
When expressing his support for term limits in a discussion about the way to select the best-qualified candidates to serve in government, Mr. Mcenulty said, "... in addition to term limits we desperately need to have congressional districts honestly drawn. It is almost impossible to vote out an incumbent or get an official from a different party elected because of how districts are gerrymandered ...". He followed this by saying (and I agree), "Term limits are important, but gerrymandering is just outright fraud against the voters."
The laws that strangle us exist at the state level because there are no express prohibitions in our Constitution to prevent the states from making laws governing the electoral process. Political parties entered the vacuum afforded by our Constitution and enacted ... at the state level ... the rules which limit our ability to select our own candidates or control our own governments.
When those who seek political power are allowed to write the rules by which that power is attained, it is unwise to imagine altruism will be their motivating force. In these circumstances, gerrymandering and all the other manifestations of corruption that engulf us are inevitable. When we let parties control our political processes, we are foolish to expect them to act in a principled manner.
We have a failed political system because we allowed politicians to bastardize our political system to serve their own ends. The depth of that bastardization is astounding. It is certainly not limited to gerrymandering. It pervades the entire fabric of politics from rules for caucuses, primaries and conventions to rules that allow riders on our public laws. The system is powerful and it's deeply entrenched.
Our only recourse is to rally enough support to force the various states to abolish the party-preferential regulations that prevent the American people from governing themselves. Attempts to clean it up must come before our state legislatures, and they have a long history of rendering such cleansing ineffective while misleading the public with lip-service to "cleaning house". Working through the 50 state legislatures is a non-trivial task, but it must be done.
Correcting the serious problems in our political system is a daunting prospect. Doing so without recourse to self-defeating violence will test our intellect and our resolve. I'm certain we can accomplish the task, but I'm not sure how long it's going to take.
Fred
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Selecting Leaders, Partisanship
Kristofer Munsterhjelm, in extended discussion on the Electorama site and in private emails, explained why good government must include proportional representation for the many diverse interests of the people. Careful consideration of Kristofer's description showed that society would benefit if special interests are able to participate as a group, provided the rest of society is equally well represented. Practical Democracy ensures that those who are not members of organized groups will also be represented by including the entire electorate in the electoral process.
Groups of people who share a common interest are incomparably different from entities organized for the purpose of achieving political power. The following describes how Practical Democracy integrates proportional representation for partisans of diverse interests without letting the interest groups control the process. It is hereby incorporated in the Selecting Leaders section, above.
Selecting Leaders, Partisanship
At any time up to one week before an election, voters may declare themselves to be members of any party or may create a new party, simply by declaring membership in it. Voters that do not declare party membership will automatically be assigned to a set of voters with no party affiliation. The Election Commission will create triads from members of the same party, as long as more than two members of a party advance. When less than three members of a party advance, the party's remaining candidates are merged with the unaligned candidates. This allows elevation of the advocates for partisan interests to the highest level supported by the party's membership.
This change reduces the risk of suitable candidates being shut out at the lowest level and encourages thorough examination of the tenets of partisan views. It makes Practical Democracy responsive to the interests of the people. The public is encouraged ... and empowered ... to support the ideas that are important to them. Special interests maintain their identity through multiple levels, depending on the size of the party, and the champions for partisans advance to levels where they can promote their cause. Each party achieves influence in government commensurate with the public support its cause inspires.
This modification corrects the abuses of the present system of party politics because, under Practical Democracy, voters with no party affiliation have a voice. Special interests will be represented in our government, but, more importantly, the people will be represented, too.
Fred Gohlke
Groups of people who share a common interest are incomparably different from entities organized for the purpose of achieving political power. The following describes how Practical Democracy integrates proportional representation for partisans of diverse interests without letting the interest groups control the process. It is hereby incorporated in the Selecting Leaders section, above.
Selecting Leaders, Partisanship
At any time up to one week before an election, voters may declare themselves to be members of any party or may create a new party, simply by declaring membership in it. Voters that do not declare party membership will automatically be assigned to a set of voters with no party affiliation. The Election Commission will create triads from members of the same party, as long as more than two members of a party advance. When less than three members of a party advance, the party's remaining candidates are merged with the unaligned candidates. This allows elevation of the advocates for partisan interests to the highest level supported by the party's membership.
This change reduces the risk of suitable candidates being shut out at the lowest level and encourages thorough examination of the tenets of partisan views. It makes Practical Democracy responsive to the interests of the people. The public is encouraged ... and empowered ... to support the ideas that are important to them. Special interests maintain their identity through multiple levels, depending on the size of the party, and the champions for partisans advance to levels where they can promote their cause. Each party achieves influence in government commensurate with the public support its cause inspires.
This modification corrects the abuses of the present system of party politics because, under Practical Democracy, voters with no party affiliation have a voice. Special interests will be represented in our government, but, more importantly, the people will be represented, too.
Fred Gohlke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)