Humanitarian Government Section 8 Part 1 A Foundation
Why should we change? Do we want change? Do we want to change? Will the fear of change prevent change? Will everyone want what is needed to change? Yeah...any question that has 'change' to it, add those in. That's just a short list.
Hello and today, I put my proverbial shovel to the ground.
I've a series of questions for all of you:
Why should we change?
Do we want change?
Do we want to change?
Will the fear of change prevent change?
Will everyone want what is needed to change?
Yeah...any question that has 'change' to it, add those in. That's just a short list.
My answer to all of them is: yes. The first question, why, at least for me is fairly simple: the systems we are living under right now are broken, easily exploited and the underpinnings haven't changed to fit the times.
OK, so some of that isn't simple. So what to do?
Issue: Foundation and Baseline
Proposed solution:
I wrote a few articles ago a warning and future, with a 'start out' on infrastructure. I've also given out a couple of articles of various governments and pounded on the reality that there is no pure form of any government proposed in the history of time. Not even running tribes of small amount of people is done the same way. It's up to toleration, location, and a whole host of social and economic situations that can influence that government.
So how to start?
To start, let's go to an Old English word: Erf. Simple, easily typed for multiple use, but would also fit the scenario I honestly feel is coming. See my Warning article.
Erf means or refers to 'inheritance' or 'patrimony'. Yeah, if you don't know the word 'patrimony', I didn't either and not to sound big-headed, I've a fairly large vocabulary. So I had to look that up: it has three meanings:
- An inheritance from a father or paternal ancestor (Yes, but England has been a patriarchal society for a long time. Scream at any English ancestors you have for this part of the definition).
- An inheritance or legacy; heritage.
- An endowment or estate belonging to an institution, especially a church.
I'm going to assume, based on my writings so far, which one I lean toward: an inheritance or legacy; heritage.
Now, if you've not read my Warning, I'll give a very short recap: The economy is damaged (and it is), cannot turn around fast enough or well enough (this has a high probability), and our economy collapses and the world goes into a Second Great Depression. Trust me, the article goes into more detail and a semi-outline of a dig-out. This article isn't on the 'dig-out'. That's later and I will get into it in detail.
So, The US essentially collapses and then resurrects itself. But changed so much that those future citizens dump 'US' and change names as to remind themselves and future generations of the differences. So, Erf is born.
So Erf is trying to reconstitute itself from the ashes of a great political experiment. However, the population of Erf, via hard experience not history lessons, has found that a great political experiment can also be flawed and exploited. They are looking for something that may fix those issues.
For one, some sort of baseline on structure is needed. Every government other than for very small populations have something solid to work off of. Usually something in some form of 'hard copy'. For the US today, that's the Constitution. So, we'll start with a Constitution. I bring this Preamble in my first article and since we're going to work on something new, I figured we'd need a new start, but also rooted in the past: The Articles of Confederation and The United States Constitution. Now, at the time, I hadn't come up with Erf. I also didn't realize how different things would be from conception to now. So, substitute 'United States' for 'Erf'.
We of all versions of Humanity may be today and may become in the future and live in those States who form the United States, in order to create a more perfect Union for all of those Humans, will establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure liberty and prosperity to all Citizens, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America based in the blueprint of the Articles of Confederacy and the original Constitution for the United States of America and those members who choose to do their Civic Duty and speak for themselves in Governance.
To define Humanity, we will determine that as holding 99.9% of the same DNA recognized scientifically as being human, who will acknowledge and will treat all with the same respect, dignity, and behaviors they wish upon themselves, and will support the Pillars of Governance: The Citizenry, The Press, The Role of Economics, The Role of Religion, and The Sub-Branches of our Government that will be The Executive, The Judiciary, and The Legislative and the Military.
I'll still stand by it. How we'll get to that mythical government...well that's where I'll stick my foot in, agree that it's smelly and a mess. However, we're digging our way out, right?
Notice I put in 'The Citizenry' first? That is the bedrock of this. The Articles of Confederacy, the U.S. Constitution with all Amendments, and current conditions can be considered the foundation of the government, however it's the citizenship that makes it work. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of words.
Lets start there. I also went into this in my second article.
Sub-Issue: Citizenry
My second article was all about Citizenship and Immigration. Part of that article was what I would love to see as 'citizenship'.
In a nutshell, a citizen is active, aware, and educated. Not just in knowledge for a job or something like that. No, this is more of their responsibilities as a citizen (civics) and aware and interested in not only what is going on in all parts of the nation but also the world. Yeah...I'm putting a lot of responsibility on people. But they are the ones who live with the decisions made by others, so they are the ones that need to be wise enough to have the first and final say over what they need and want from their government. For my proposal, it will be very necessary.
There is a form (as stated in the first part on comparative government) of Democracy called Demachry. This is the bit I wrote on that (I'll include even the footnotes of this into my footnotes in general for this article) (1, 2, 3):
Demarchy (6, 7, 11): This one is interesting and I would tie it in with Rank Voting/Public Service. There's some areas that do have Rank Voting and I'd love to see that more often. I'd love it better if parties stay out of politics and anyone running would focus on solution platforms and flat out make it illegal for attack ads/rally's and whatever. Seriously: attacks isn't policy and not solutions. Get with the picture those of you who are reading this and not realizing what you bought into. (Sorry to those who have a better understanding of reality.)
Now Demarchy has some benefits that would 'fix' some of the issues with any form of Representative Democracy. Generally, this form has a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens and, like jury duty, people are pulled from this pool to form groups of one name or another and make the decisions. So, a fixed set of time for the 'duty', a demand for accountability and ethics, and even a wider range of ages and thoughts would be part of this (especially in 'Erf' which I'm calling 'the new US'. It's an Old English word and I'm not going to tell you what it means—yes more homework). This also would limit or eliminate 'special interest' involvement.
See why I say educated? Aware? This means that humanity in Erf needs to engage with not only the government in general, but each other. They also can have individual issues needing to be addressed, but also need to keep the needs and abilities of the rest of the nation, and even world, in mind too. Even if you do Rank Voting.
What I'm willing to do is hybrid this. Also, I'll go into some of the structure beyond the people themselves briefly.
For one, citizenship it's a right AND privilege. In my second article I proposed two forms of citizenship and also pointed out a glaring truth that most in politics don't even say 'boo' about.
The point-out is part of what I consider a must for citizenship, especially in light of history. The current U.S. Citizenship test.
When someone is becoming a citizen here, they are put into a position they have to take a Citizenship test: history, government and more. It's not the test I'm for/against: its the reality it brings things into focus.
Currently, only about 36% of Americans can pass that very same multiple-choice test. Not to mention, to pass that test is 60% or better. So, abysmally low. Way too low. I know people will scream that new citizens will be able to vote before they get up to speed. Guess what? As of right now, I don't foresee a dearth of people coming in to be citizens simply because just visiting is problematical any more. So that argument is false. Besides, if you believe the future I've already put out, you have time (hopefully), and all that, I suggest you find multiple sources of political news and teaching materials and start now. History too considering that is also either part of that testing, or needed for good governance.
Now, those who fill that qualification are 'active citizens'. But is that all that is required? No.
Actions, behaviors, and results of both. In short, responsibility for yourself and others on your actions and behaviors is needed. Anyone who pass the testing can be active citizens, but the true test of leadership isn't following a party line or agreeing with just one group of people. It's how you put forward logical solutions, think of outcomes, and a historical record of finding common ground and good outcomes.
OK, yes, how does one make the decision on what those are? For one our entire system of Representative government would change.
If you read my previous articles on Governments and Ideologies, you'll find echo's and touches of various sorts, especially from Part 2 in this. Bureaucracy is still in it similar to today because even if our population falls rapidly and is much smaller, specialized groups still need to exist to monitor, administer, and help with specialized knowledge (they also will have oversight, just like now). This also has facets of Trigonocracy, Consociationalism, Communitarianism, Progressivism, even Liberalism and Libertarianism, but also I threw in a fictional political system I called 'voting weight' but only bits and pieces. It's also called Kalothi, and if you read my article or look it up, you'll find info on it. So, as stated before: no government system stands on its own. Whatever is created or in action today is never pure.
Issue: The Co-Equals: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
If you noticed, Demarcy pulls people from a pool (population) for the running of the government. Fine, I can get behind that. Now, this will go down a theoretical line of thinking, 'supposedly', 'in theory', 'maybe', 'should be', and all those 'iffy' terms will be 'normal'. Because I looked around and didn't find much in the way of this in actual play right now beyond certain citizen duties like jury duty.
So, lets say the entire governmental system is tossed out the window as it stands today. How does this proposal work?
Well, first, let me point out some of the issues we have now. I can't exactly say we have a Democracy other than the fact that our system is premised on representation of the citizens. Much else has been modified, mixed in with other ideologies and forms enough that I couldn't call our current form of government as Democracy. Especially now.
- Electoral College: I understand how the Founders' intended for this to work. However, that was with Thirteen States, smaller population and a few hundred other issues that no longer exist. Between the very fact that Demarcy would be in play, the Electoral College would be gone.
- Consolidation of power: The three co-equal branches of government isn't exactly the issue that I have. It's families spreading out in various settings and states, becoming politicians, staying in those positions for decades and more is...almost a bug that was put into the system and hoped that it would be overlooked. It wasn't, it isn't, and when representation is randomly pulled, the power base isn't allowed to dig in and exist well beyond the activity at hand.
- Hang ups: As of this writing, the US is in the midst of a Governmental Shutdown. I won't go into the where and whys, who at fault or anything like that. Not now. However, the two tier system of legislative, I believe, is now either unnecessary or is now an impediment to governmental work being done. What I'm proposing is more of councils being the decision-making bodies on all levels, that compromise and cooperation would have to be done to get things done. No parties means no party lines. Not that I'm so naive that parties might not form. However, with the mobility of the make-up of the councils, even if something as such happened, then maybe the damage may not be as bad or for as long. However, until I see other issues, councils would be the decision-making bodies and whatever is hammered out, put into play and all the million and three small movements that creates, enacts, and more of legislation—councils would be what we'd have.
Now, rural areas has tiny towns, usually. But let's take care of something like a city/town/village first. Neighborhood and city level councils are generally those who have an interest in being leadership, but also keep in mind WHO they answer to and who they work for. Those areas that aren't 'urban', and I'll leave it to sociologists and others with specialized knowledge to determine what is 'urban' and 'rural', would have something on par of a neighborhood council and a separate one for county level government. Yes, both levels would be in play.
When it comes to County, State, Regional, and National/Federal, half of every council would have to be from a rural area. So, I'd say that would be the closest to 'party lines'.
So, how to work this...(tapping chin).
Out of the qualified pool that not only were determined to be active citizens, but also proven themselves active enough to have a want to help lead further up the chain a set of delegation members would be sent to anything higher than city/rural equivalent. Remember, this system I'm seeing is that citizens are extremely active in their own governance. I believe we have enough to start this all out and future generations will simply grow up with the mindsets and environments (not to mention recent history reminders). I'll leave it to those who want or has the expertise to help set more than this bare bones, such as numbers of delegates and such. But I do strongly want a split down the middle of rural and urban delegates. Counties would have to work with their counties and with a fully mixed cross section of representatives (Another note: one can be an active citizen then lose the active portion. You'll still be a citizen, just not able to vote or participate other than maybe ideas.)
Those who prove out leaders, keeping the line walked between keeping the base of population they are representing taken care of with the side of needing to keep the general welfare in mind, also, get put into a pool for later pulls for the next level. As stated, no consecutive serving and this system requires citizens to essentially be politicians in a way. Each and every one of us needs to understand that humanity is humanity...doesn't matter where you come from or anything like that. Farmers can teach city-dwellers skills for community gardens, and whatever other skills that have been traditionally given over to rural areas. Same for city-dwellers, go out, learn and teach the city-visions, that could be adapted to make rural life easier. Is that such a bad thing?
So the same thing goes on up. Regional areas could be based on circuit court areas, or time zones, something along those lines. From there, the last step would be National/Federal. There would be one last thing to qualify, and be active in that role and not sent to someone else: every person in the Congress and Executive, and I would even suggest SCOTUS-equivalent at the very least, undergo a thorough security check to cover Top Secret...a security clearance. If you can't pass that, well, I'll call a spade a spade: you might not be trustworthy enough. You might be an honest person or have other stellar qualities, but being open to potential issues (like being in debt to your eyeballs and therefore vulnerable to potential bribery or worse) wouldn't do. It's qualifiers, not limiting anyone's rights of self-governance because even if you can't pass a security clearance scrutiny doesn't mean you can't participate in governance. Just not in ways that could create issues and take focus from giving good governance to one of 'Who can help me the most?”
Now, once gotten to this level, once those who have shown up for their duty, voting would take place. Now, being a group, no party, no structure of hierarchical ways, a vote, a simple ranking vote, would happen. The 'presidency' would be the top representation for each region. 'Prime Minister'/'Vice President' council would be the seconds on whatever list. So, however we could make a balanced but over counted Congress, the over count would be for those two spots.
Now what?
OK, legislation would be slower, more deliberate, justified as I've mentioned. Each 'vote' would be counted as 'yes'/'no' but also, if their justifications or outcomes for that vote fails at an overall benefit to society, it could be grounds for 'firing'. So, I'll give recent history as an example, we'll start in about June-ish 2025.
There was a bill, a very important bill, that was about one thousand pages according to reports. I've only read a very small portion of that mess.
However, the voting timeline was woefully short, unless you're a speed reader, a savant on math and economics, and realize social impacts, it shouldn't have been voted on.
In the future of Erf, that same bill would have been introduced, and about two weeks later the vote would happen. I say two weeks because as I said: the vote has to be justified and with the topic, how it effected nearly every aspect of life in the US and more, every aspect of that bill would need to be addressed before the 'yes'/'no'. Every last thing. In short, that would mean personally gaming the numbers, the repercussions, and more would have to be addressed and explained. This is two-fold: not only does it make the person voting realize more than just reports from others or demands of various people, groups or whatever, but that also explains to those being represented what the representative was thinking and why. Accountability. In Erf, those who voted for the OBBB, countered every economist in existence on what it would do and all....lets say their jobs would have been gone already and either be in the process of being re-filled or already re-filled. The 'joker' who claimed to write that monstrosity? Well, it's not illegal to propose a bill. But in 'accountability world' remember justification and showing your thinking is part and parcel. Like many things that's happened, violating just the 'justification' or even 'expected outcomes' and being widely different would also show carelessness, lack of keeping some sort of balance of self/fellow human being/nation ability in mind. I can't use 'crime against humanity', that is used under specific definitions elsewhere. However, as stated, the expected behaviors and forethought violated a type of social contract. I'll leave it up to those future persons to name the crime, but there should be fairly strong consequences. Part of that would be stripped of active citizenship (remember, there are two forms in Erf), maybe even stripped of any type of licensure they may have for their 'day job', and work for them (I'll get into economics shortly) would be bottom rungs. I'm very serious on the topic of social responsibility. Erf relies on that.
So, I said I read and did that same thing with one small part of the bill. About 200 or so pages, give or take, I'd have to re-pull up that section for exact pages. So, what if something major happened?
Those could be quick and still justified. Declarations of military actions or responses for national emergencies could have limited, justification voting. I know it would be a rushed decision, however I understand and in Erf, every citizen would also understand why that was the case.
But also, on the Presidency Counsel, Secondary (however you want to name it) Counsel, and Congress, for things to be 'passed' it would have to be 70% of representatives and two out of the three sections would have to agree for it to be ratified and signed.
If you're going to say Executive branch? What happened to that? It's still there. Just that it's no longer in one or two people, but two counsels that also has to work in sync with Congress in most things.
As far as duties, the two councils need to be in agreement on where foreign polity needs to go, who will be the Eastern (meaning Russia/Europe/Scandinavia) delegation, Western (Japan, Philippines, China, South Pacific, Australia) and Center Earth (Africa, Mediterranean, and Middle East) areas. However no matter who is where for foreign policy, the entire two groups have to be on the same page. So, those two councils would be broken up to four sections. The last group would be on Erf soil at all times, they would be the ones for continuity for Erf, and 'point of contact' for Canadian and Central and South American issues.
Not to mention, every last military action would have to have a 90% agreement in Congress, and 100% agreement in both of the two executive councils. Those of you who have served may understand that thinking, if not, let me be clear: I'm proud of each and every person who serves or has served, every one. But I'm also one who wants the betterment of humanity. Others may be willing to wage war. We all have seen the costs of war: personal, country, humanity in general. That is why the agreement thresholds are so high. Not that Erf couldn't go to war if need be. But the entire nation would need full disclosure. Would this be intelligence? Raw and unfiltered? I would say yes. Does that mean planning or anything would be disclosed, no. But everyone would need to know and agree that it's a move that everyone is willing to sacrifice for. We've seen issues with declarations of war, lack of closing within reasonable amounts of time and reasoning of those wars. We've also seen an uptick in military actions being ordered by one branch when by the Constitution, it's another branch's duty to decide those things. Can some things be done without full disclosure? Yes, but only during sanctioned actions and even those sanctioned actions would have to be reviewed on a regular basis, and diplomacy must be done while hostilities happen. Just be aware, too, there will be another issue I will bring into the picture later.
The executive also manages the Cabinet, negotiations, and appoint heads of federal agencies in addition to the Cabinet.
The Congress would still have to vote on accepting any appointments or not. There will be guardrails beyond acceptable vote: if the constituency of each delegation receives issues with whatever head or Cabinet member, the vote and position would come into question. Not to mention, that all heads of agencies and Cabinet must be proficient in whatever capacity they serve. Health/Healthcare headed by medical professionals, science other than health/healthcare headed by the various branches....etc.
If you caught on the wording: yes, more councils. The head appointments would be of one person who would answer for the various councils that they are a part of and could work with 'administration', which would be Congress and Executive branches.
If you remember my government system entries, meritocracy is an authoritarian form of government run by specialists. This isn't that because those specialists and heads of those groups are under the auspices of Congress and the Executive.
Judicial would be similar to both the Executive and Congress and the cabinet/administration positions.
There is a stark difference though. For one, it would be lawyers, to city judges, county judges, state level AG or State Supreme Court judges, to circuit or equal judgeship, then Supreme Court, and yes there would still be a SCOTUS equivalent. So yes, it would be a lawyer specific choosing. There will also be confirmation between the Executive and Congressional branches. The Bar Associations, backed up with public (as much as possible that is—personal privacy is still a concern) court decisions track records would determine who fills those seats. The reason for this is, again, two-fold. One is getting equitable and ethical legal decision makers in those seats, also to keep political whatever mumble-jumble that may still exist from touching that branch.
However, major changes would happen for those seats. For one, each circuit (currently there are thirteen) would have a seat. So one top judge from each circuit would be selected. The DoJ would be partly under this branch, too. But the DoJ would also need to be prepared to answer oversight and such to the Congress and possibly a joint Congressional/Executive combination.
Now, before I go into another section, terms. Each and every position would be one term only at a time, The persons would need to accept whatever pay set for that duty, so that's one issue before they allow their name to be entered for the pool. This means that if offered a chance to speak at some sort of gathering, people wishing to petition them for an action of any sort, and all the other dozens of ways a current politician has that could be legal but also be easily considered a bribe, all that is gone. You get your pay, you get nothing more and if found to have questionable amounts or growth of wealth or income, you best believe those would be investigated to a fair-thee-well. If found guilty, not only fines would be applied, but every cent of illicit money handed over to a general fund, and due to accountability being a foundational item of social responsibility and citizenship, that would be stripped. They would end up still hanging on silent citizenship unless they decide to turn rouge and become a criminal. I know, you can call me whatever you like. Yes I'm fully aware that some or all of what I propose is colored by life experience with a government system and representation that has been failing on a year to year (or even now a day to day) timeline. But, most proposals such as this are responses to issues experienced in any given lifetime and tend to follow Newton's Third Law of Motion (which can be applied to more than physics by the way).
If they have a job, that's all fine, but like jury duty or having to be activated for National Guard or Reserve Duty, they would be able to retain that job or be willing to give it up, and get another one post-serve. I'll only address terms for the National-Federal levels. The population as a whole would need to deal with terms otherwise, or in the case of SCOTUS equivalent, that would be done here, but the rest would be decided by the Bar Association along a national level or even state level.
For Congress, I'd say six years. Three classes, so one third of the amount of delegations be voted on every other year. The first time this system would be put into work, one third of those in Congress would have only two years, another third would be four, then of course the last third would have the full six. From there, it would be fully on schedule.
For the Executive councils, I would say six, also. Now, I can go two ways on this: classes like Congress, or a solid six years. I'll leave that to the populace to determine that.
SCOTUS. Well, SCOTUS equivalent.
Ten years. No more. No less. One time only, and even then, if they try to start to mess with governmental structure, roll back given or decided rights given by Constitution or legal decisions by previous Courts, or violating established laws accepted by three-quarters of existing voting states (which means that Territories currently would be States. So...get the picture?) would be grounds to be investigated and possible removal. Not just from the bench, either. That investigation? Oh yeah...Bar Associations from every state or a national Bar Association would be doing that, and if found in error, that law license they need to have to be in a judgeship would be pulled. So, if they want to be able to practice law after their ten years on the highest bench in Erf, or even after a shortened tenure for serious personal reasons such as health concerns, they better hold to ethics and law. I could and would argue with whomever that SCOTUS currently is off the rails.
Issue: The Press
I'm going to address all forms of media and press in this. It's going to be short, brutal and without remorse.
All outlets, all forms....two rules:
No multiple outlets may be owned. Let me explain this briefly: say some newspaper (the real kind) also has a YouTube, social media and such. That's is fine. One source, multiple ways of getting their news out.
The issue is when its one parent company having multiple outlets. Nope, nada, too much consolidation even if one company has more than one outlet. Also, I'm well aware of boards of directors and leadership forms of businesses. No one person shall be involved in more than one outlet in funding or editorial power in more than one press/media outlet. Those who are not active citizens cannot individually own any outlet, and if you gain citizenship from outside Erf and want a media outlet sort, then you'll need to wait ten years and earn yourself a reputation of keeping social, governmental, and personal goals more in line of helping rather than major gains or influence.
No platform, media outlet, or press outlet, will be allowed to do even back handed attacks, edit or otherwise show actions in one light or another. In short: if you're going to cover politics...you better follow real life; like C-SPAN but in print or some such.
The Press is currently held in only a handful of billionaires. I'm fairly sure you already know my stance on that. So...
Erf is born out of ashes. The world, the US that we knew is already dead. We are currently in death throes. So, things will have to change. How this comes about on this topic, I'm leaving to the populace even now. This is part of the Trigonocracy system, by the way. Yes a hybrid form of Democracy.
Issue: The Military
I'll jump to Military next.
One: the military has been apolitical or nearly from the start in this country (I won't include the Civil War. Part of that wasn't even related to slavery, more along political lines. However, the 'armies' were more of those who volunteered based on the lines of belief and wasn't a formal 'army' as we have today). It's managed to stay that way. I won't go into what is happening now, because I'd rather not slide off into colorful language.
OK, how to fix what hasn't been broken for 249 years, but...yeah...I'm stopping myself.
For one, the military will still be answerable to the Legislative branch (Congress), especially for military actions. The Executive may be (collectively) 'commander in chief' and has a Department of Defense (no I will NOT call it Department of War). There will still be the Joint Chiefs.
However, between every legal lever that can be used, developed and put into action that insulates the military from extremes of any form of political power would be put into play. For one, former military members in good standing, able to hold clearances, and have the ability to convey military terminology and actions into wording and explanations to non-military would be ones for 'Secretary of Defense'. Each branch would have at least one representative, and the entire set-up: SoD (Secretary of Defense) to newly applied person in MEPS would be able to vote, and participate in government that way, but their views, their actions wouldn't necessarily be under surveillance 24/7. However, if they wish to hold or act upon behaviors, ideologies and whatnot that is counter and/or considered by society at large to be 'extreme' then their service or continued service needs to be reviewed.
I know: how the hell does this 'thinking' I keep harping on work, it could be exploited?
When a system holds self, social, and specialty accountability first and foremost, and even now this is something as a contention, who decides what is 'acceptable'? Well, society.
Yes, that's messy. But right now, I honestly believe with decades of breaking down, driving wedges and forcing divisions in ways that would make the best crafter of PsyOp cry with joy, we don't have a good point to stand. But that's now.
Erf, as a reminder, is born of ashes. A decade or more spent in the depths of a very hard, long, world-wide depression and social teamwork was hard learned and socially, economically, and even environmentally enforced to survive from one day to another. Those folks will have a better social outlook than we. Those who keep holding onto outdated, unacceptable, and otherwise harmful to the general welfare of Erf may still exist after the recovery and even allowed to keep going on their terms unless violent. But control only goes so far, especially if members of any society interacts and learns from each other.
So, councils, representation of the branches, answerable to the People, via the Legislative body and the Executive. Hopefully the military would stay apolitical for another 250 years or so.
Issue: The Role of Religion
I will admit, to start this off, I've issues with any form of organized religion. Especially in today's environment and legalities being exposed. So how to handle this topic?
Our Founders, based in part with the Mayflower Compact and laws created by those Pilgrims on Freedom of Religion had it right. Most, if not all, religions follows some variation of the Golden rule: do unto others as you want done to you. Essentially: don't act like an ass and be nice to one another.
So the form of religion can be whatever as long as it's not harmful in mind or body. Texts like the Bible has descriptions and more on what is now considered socially unacceptable behaviors or actions. That will need to be taken into account. Does that mean whatever you follow that stated something about owning slaves and how to treat them is illegal? No. Those passages could be used as historical references on why slavery was acceptable in Colonial America up to the first Civil War (I'm saying first because I've thoughts on that but will not disclose at this time). But to hold and/or teach in ways that is a slow version of brainwashing won't be allowed, either.
Not to mention getting involved in 'politics'.
Demarcy has random pulling of representation. I'm also aware of clumping together of people like-minded happens. However lets just say that if a person who is serving their civic duty but also couches things in religious frameworks won't have a job for long. Not to mention a look-see on if only a certain segment of passages are being taught and repeatedly harped on and opinions expressed repeatedly often would be involved. Sorry to those of you who like to cherry pick certain passages, say 'this is the truth', harp on that, put in your views or views of a religious governing body and that: that's no longer religion, that's brainwashing.
Also, if you want some form of religious building or following, be prepared to be limited.
I take Freedom of Religion to be beliefs only. I will also say that if a congregation is over one hundred people, schools are being wanted to open up, has a national or international conference or group to run said congregations, if accepting cash tithes and much over a comfortable life for the pastors/religious leaders: then it's no longer a religion. It's a business.
In Erf, there is a very narrow definition of what is deemed a church or religion or not. You could be sitting on a hill somewhere, believing in the Blue Ox of Spacial Purity and those who follow needs to pray on while standing on their heads three times a day and say the sky is orange rather than blue. Well, eh, I would call that a cult rather than a religion. Especially if the behaviors are such that it cuts people off from one another and control is more the game than not. Otherwise, sure, you can believe that, just not my cup of tea.
Now, since my beliefs are such that spiritual beliefs are individual in nature and internal for the most part, doesn't mean that I'm going to force that on others. But those knowledgeable in cult deconstruction, cult formations, and comparative religious scholars along with lawyers would have to get together and cobble up some form of definition of what is considered religion and what can be held before business forms of taxation kicks in.
However, if a church is wanting or financially able to advertise, open up religious schooling other than something like 'Bible Study' or equivalent, owns jets, massive amounts of land, multi-million dollar properties and houses and 'live the good life', that is no longer religion, that business and should fall under those guidelines.
Am I being harsh? Possibly. However, religion, power, and money has a strange relationship with one another and this isn't the first time a nation or even a 'world' (the last time 'the world' was more or less considered a certain geographical region than the world/global concept of today) has had issues with a toxic blend of those three and driven for a want of control. The 'Middle Ages', AKA Dark Ages was lived in a section of time that had this as a normal part of life. What happened?
Well, for one science and innovation was determined solely by the Church. Sorry to those who belong to that particular belief system, but it is true. Many died by a variety of ways simply for putting forth ideas that the Church did not approve of. Beyond that, the Church was unwilling or refused to allow that idea or advancement go further even when shown evidence that whatever idea or belief held was incorrect by the Church. Right now, look around and tell me what you see happening?
Another is, the Church and the 'powers that be' at the time were bed fellows. If you wanted to get ahead, you 'believed' and if liked, you got 'help' and it may be your entire family. That's an issue I'd rather not come up a third time. Get my drift?
Control systems put in place on how believers had to behave and anyone not following 100% in those control systems were deemed heretics, witches, demon-possessed and more.
This is were the birth of my distaste of organized religion comes from and I'll stand by it. In today's world, that distaste is being distilled and strengthened. When there is a barrage of allegations, charges, arrests, court cases (especially if won by the plaintiffs), people in jail for committing crimes in the name of 'religion' or claim to be 'religious' leadership of even minor standing....yeah, let's just say no one group of people should make rules for adherents of a spiritual form of thought, demand obedience without question, and not only violate those rules they set, but also rules set by society as a whole. I don't care what justifications you might have for those behaviors and actions.
But religion is a school of thought, a form of spiritual belief and action. That I have no issues with, but to put one form above another, push for the recognition of one form against Constitutionally enshrined law and rights, put it into public schools despite those of other beliefs being in those same areas, putting themselves out in public and full view endorsing political arena thoughts or persons....no, just no.
Religion can be dealt with at home, and via influences when attending such church services or teachings. Schooling isn't spiritual and should not be done by even qualified teachers and placing religion into the mix in such a way as to be a mandatory part of the curriculum. I remember having to go to Confession at least once a week, once upon a time.
Education not to be touched by governmental structure influences other than the overview of structure of governing/administration and not touched by any given religious views other than classes on comparative religion that could be taught from middle school onward, should be a given.
Religion not to be touched by government other than to determine when it crosses over lines for taxation, allowable but lose structured laws, and no one religion thought of as being 'better' than another should be the allowable structure.
Those three things can and are frequently in contact with each other. I get it and I get why: society, humanity, and a want to be with others that believe and such like yourself. However, when they mix freely, without guardrails or even unraveled legal structures to control power consolidation, the situation becomes toxic. And fast. So, these three need guidelines and social pressures to keep the separation solid.
Issue: The Role of Economics
I saved this for last for a reason: economics is, frankly, a bitch. I thought I could have gotten off with one quick and dirty baseline article on economics. It became three and could have easily gone into four or five. I wasn't trying to teach an economy course and I'm not an economist, so I went through some things, got deeper into some than others and ignored the rest. If you're an economist and want help or a way of publishing something to teach, I'm willing to chat and see about things. But personally, I went in as deep as I did only to get most of us on the same page.
'Humanitarian Government' is a proposal, opinion piece, critique of our current situations and government, and even socioeconomic status and methods. But one thing it's based on is the thought of 'humanity needs to be human'. Does this mean 'dog eats dog'? No. Not just a 'no' but hell-to-the-no.
I've put out a tiny portion of infrastructure, and between that and the Warning article has some of my beliefs of what are human rights: housing, education, healthcare, utilities, communication, fair representation and government. I've just got done about freedom of religion. So what does economics look like and why is it a Pillar?
Being a Pillar means it's important to recognize and also that (yes this is me and not necessarily you) historically that topic has had repeated issues that are cyclic in nature and harmful in its excesses or forced limitations to the point of austerity and misery.
Being a Pillar gives a road map of responsibilities to those involved in business and economics. Yes, in some areas there are ethics. But under our current system, it has either ignored, has had others ignore, instigated abridgments and more of almost every guardrail and wants to have free reign.
Again: no.
In the US as far back as history goes, businesses have a habit (I understand bottom lines but hear me out) of cutting corners, violating trusts, and simply ignoring the aftermaths of those actions.
Love Canal, the Dioxin Backroads of Missouri, PFAS world-wide contamination, and so many Superfund sites as not to be funny. Each one is from business (directly or indirectly) wanting to flout guardrails, ignore even internal research negative outcomes, and (shudder) even advertise that whatever is the opposite of what it truly is.
Government subsidies to industries that make billions in profits each year. Tax loopholes, and being blind to facts of simply a circle of economic life to do whatever they like are all issues under this umbrella.
Now, I know I'm going to be called 'communist', 'Marxist', and more. The best of of all that bunch would be 'socialist' and I would say that anyone who likes Social Security, public services held in public trust and paid for by tax dollars are socialists too. So, if you don't want socialism in any form, I'd suggest finding an island somewhere and set up something there, and hope that your fire department payment insurance is accepted by the local fire department.
Humanity has always run, at least in part, on socialist principals. You needed healthcare? You went to the local healer, gave a chicken for their time but you got the visit and medicine and hopefully got better. The chicken is to compensate for time and expertise needed to treat you. Not for profit or gain. Simply that the healer couldn't do whatever for daily survival (like getting the chicken) in the time to treat you. Is that capitalism? No. Profit isn't a motive and it's not a goal, two things capitalism is based upon.
But am I suggesting a money-less economy? No. Am I saying a fully free capitalistic system? Absolutely not: we have nearly that already and there are many issues involved.
However, at this time, this particular Pillar will be a huge item on discussion and will need to wait. Not that there is no framework now, just that it will be complicated (when you're looking at things long-term and pan-beneficial, the structure by itself will not be a cut and dry form of economics), and somewhat detailed even in a loose framework. So for now, I'll end here and have another article on that soon.