Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo

TEOMCROTE = TEOTWAWKI on steroids! The End Of Mankind's Current Reign Over The Earth takes into account that our ancestors were neither suicidal, stupid, nor our genetic inferiors but still wound up getting wiped off the Earth. Whereas CSER [cser.org: Centre for Study of Existential Risk] tries to PREVENT this dispensation from coming to an end, TEOMCROTE works from the eventuality/possibility/probability that the end our age takes place and what to do then

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
politics


Caveat: I can only speak for Dutch matters that i've looked into but i'm guessing it's very similar just about everywhere.


Trias Politica is a principle of division of political power and function.
Religious freedom is really the freedom of opinion and practice of one's opinions. In extension, it's the freedom to information, acquiring, sharing, and applying it.
Constitution is about foundational law that supercedes all other law, principles, treaties, and authority. It should be immutable.

The above 3 principles are not to be found in the Dutch constitution. They're not mentioned, let alone defined, let alone is it arranged in the Dutch constitution how they should be applied and safeguarded.
Constitution, Trias Politica, and religious freedom are a trinity of principles that TOGETHER support freedom. They support one another. Without one [let alone 2] of the trinity, none can survive (the onslaught of authoritarian forces).

There are no organisations that i've ever heard of that actually apply the above principles. There are no institutions, foundations, or other organisations that are NOT authoritarian.

Freedom must be organized. Authoritarian forces are well organized, according to their principles of authoritarian hierarchy. To remain unorganized in the face of authoritarian organization is to submit to them.
The fist will always smash fingers.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/31/2012, 7:21 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
the constitutional, secular, TP organisation


A practical application of the above principles according to (Dutch) law might be to found an organisation consisting of the following:

- a church
- a club
- a foundation

The Foundation is inherently authoritarian by (Dutch) law. The actual persons that function as the foundation's leaders can be called to account for the foundation's actions. It is, however, a good form for the judicial power (of the desired organisation) to take on. It defends and applies the constitution of the organisation. The club and the church will inherently bow down to the foundation's judgements concerning whether the organisation's [i.e. church, club, foundation] constitution is applied.

The Club can almost be organised any way you like, according to law. This would be the functional day-to-day administrative force of the organisation. They SPEND the money.
The Club is a group of people elected from the church. They offer suggestions for action upon which church members vote. They are voted into office by church members, as well. They are voted out of church members.

The Church is everyone connected to the organisation. Having a church inherently supplies freedoms in the authoritarian society at large. This freedom needs to be applied to all members personally. They will never be required to offer their personal information,, like finger print, name, photo, etc.
Members will be known to the church and each other through a sophisticated but practical matrix of personal relationships of their own choice.
Church members vote on how much money is allotted to the organization by it's members. They vote on policies that the Club suggests as options. They vote on who is to work in the Club. They vote on HOW money is allotted to the policies of the Club. They vote for the President of the Club.

The President is there to watch over the Club, protect it's interests, and serve as a spokesman for it. The President is also the watchdog WITHIN the Foundation, i.e. Church members vote someone into the Foundation. The President can have a member of the Foundation fired, though he has no say over who's to replace that person. The President resides over the Club, a policeman of sorts within the Club to maintain order and watch over that the Constitution is applied in all cases. (Ultimately, the Club's actions will be checked by the Foundation, making sure the Constitution is carried out to the letter.)

Knowledge is power but so is money:
- the Church determines how much money is spent on which policy. Members supply what they have voted to spend.
- the Club spends the resources it has been allotted. They put together policies and plans that Church members vote over.
- the Foundation collects funds and allots them according to what has been voted on (according to constitutional protocols). If the Constitution has been honored to the Foundation's satisfaction, it supplies the funds it has collected to the Club so it can carry out the policies and plans over which Church members have voted.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 2/3/2012, 12:22 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/31/2012, 7:44 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Libertarian application


According to Libertarian principles, civilians should have the right to choose by which laws they are governed. They have the right to choose to which constitution they commit, not just which persons carry policies out. They have a right to which police force they subject their authority. Everything.

The above model also offers the above principle of freedom in it's application. Whichever organisation [of club, church, and foundation] one chooses, one inherently chooses for the constitution on which said organisation is founded.
Depending on the size of the constitutional secular TP organisation in question, it should be possible to arrange courts, police, and other services. Any citizen can then vote to which rule of law they submit and commit.

One important note to this should be that the might=right rule of law that presides over society in this day can only be called lawless. Therefore, voting on which rule of law one embraces cannot really be called an alternative to the system at large. It's neither about reestablishing nor expanding on freedom. Freedoms in the authoritarian system are things that the system TOLERATES. They are the rights given to slaves, basically. They are favors. The above is about ESTABLISHING civilization and freedom. Nothing more and nothing less.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
1/31/2012, 8:35 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
to police or not to police


Police. They just are. In all human history, it seems, there've just always been police. Police and jails to put 'bad guys' in. Police and jails and punishment. But i won't go there right now. For now: police and to police.

Lacking human organisation, communities over 200 people [research into communes shows] default into authoritarian organisations or hierarchies. The might=right principle. Individuals subjected to the will of the masses.
Ironically enough, it's organized chaos. NATURAL chaos and natural processes are superceded and undermined in favor of human and inhuman authorities [like soulless organisations].
When there is no law [read: constitution] to ensure that humanity/humane [natural] laws are safe, lawlessness [lacking natural and human law] develops as people out of touch with each other can start seeing others as numbers. Hence the reason why authoritarian processes are the default when any group grows to be more than 200 souls.

The default authoritarian [might=right] powers-that-be police the people. Hence the reason why our histories are always accompanied by police forces in one form or another. What does it mean to police?

The inhuman(e) default authoritarian society instills fear in individuals. It is symptomatic of the authoritarian condition. Fear and authority go hand-in-hand. The need TO POLICE is about the need to SHOW one's power. Also, show and authoritarianism always go hand in hand. Authorities based on power [contrary to authorities based on competence] are empty. They are bereft of humanity and they compensate by show. If you have no content all you have is cosmetics. [Hollywood... The illusion]

Unnatural inhuman forces fear natural human forces. They are opposites. The one is lawful [in line with the forces of nature], the other utterly lawless. The will of a few determine all. The will of the masses is subjugated to the will of a rule-making elite [they can't really be called "laws"; they are merely legalities].

The POLICE force is the power of TPTB to install fear in individuals. It is a show of force. It is also an inherently lawless principle because the police only punish that which they happen to find. It's a numbers game. They solve 5% of crimes and then they terrorize the people by punishing the few transgressors they were able to get. The slow, the dumn, the amateurs, the inexperienced, the young. These they punish. Their punishment is a show of force. It is meaningless since 95% of crime goes free but TPTB accomplish their goal: fear and show. It was never about keeping people safe. That's not what it's about TO THEM.

Policing also is about blackmail. Politicians make so many laws that all individual citizens are basically breaking the law by doing anything but breathing. That's why TPTB love copyright law; they don't care about intellectual property, it doesn't make anyone happy or make them rich; they love that basically every citizen can be charged with breaking some law or another. That means that any individual citizen can be blackmailed when it suits TPTB, supposedly legally:
"If you don't stop doing this-n-this, we will charge you with breaking this law-or-other and you'll go to jail!"
It's perfect. It's legal. Just create enough innane laws so that basically everybody is breaking some law and you can't be blamed for being authoritarian because you're just upholding the law. However, the way the legal system is USED isn't lawful at all. It's used to push censorship and limit freedoms that don't suit TPTB.

TO POLICE, therefore, is about random shows of force leaving justice to chance and slim percentages. It's about terror. Fear. Terrorism.
It's also about blackmail. ANY law that should be allowed to pass should be a law that isn't broken BY ANYONE. By making it so that EVERYONE is breaking laws creates the situation in which blackmail is an accident-waiting-to-happen.

If a legal rule is a LAW, it should be impossible to break. You can't break the LAW OF GRAVITY, why is it possible to break a law passed by a national administration? If it's called a "law", it shouldn't be possible to break. If you can't arrange that, call it what it is: a "rule". Why does it matter?
Lawlessness is about will over law. The word "law" implies will is not an issue. You can desire for gravity not to apply to you all you want/will/desire, you're still gonna fall. Political WILL is different. Why CALL it a law? Because it's about SHOW. The words explain everything.

The principle of default authoritarian organisations to police people has to do with terrorism and blackmail. It is how a tiny elite enforce their will on the masses. It is how lawlessness overrides humanity, the law of nature that is inherent in every human individual. It's about the fight against human nature and how TPTB enforce their lawlessness so they are free to carry out their will at the expense of the masses.

Last edited by TheLivingShadow, 7/11/2012, 1:17 pm


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
2/3/2012, 12:10 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
direct democracy


What is a direct democracy? Learn how We the People can bypass Congress and restore liberty
"Unlike the current 'Representative Democracy' where elected representatives make decisions regardless of the wishes of their constituencies," he writes, "in Direct Democracy individuals vote on critical issues and their decisions are carried out by their elected representatives... Whether they like it or not."
According to the site, there are DDN movements afoot in the U.S., Greece, Ireland and Poland.
follow link to read the rest
Also see: Direct Democracy Now.org


---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
2/14/2012, 8:50 am Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 
TheLivingShadow Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Location: Morocco
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
other principles


Question everything & everyone every time. THIS is what leads to understanding, wisdom, and freedom.

The right to distrust
When you come to think about it [like me, obviously], society is built on all kinds of trust placed in people, ideas, and institutions. That trust if FORCED on citizens in defiance of the basic principle underlying a division of church and state/religious freedom.

Religious freedom is really [again, if you really think about it] about freedom of thought, opinion, and knowledge. It's about the right to BELIEVE what you would. The right to your own beliefs implies that you've also the right to MISTRUST or not believe what you would. When modern culture or society boycots a citizen if they don't believe in certain people, institutions, or ideas,, there's really no religious freedom. If you cannot believe or mistrust whatever you like, there is no freedom of thought and mind.

The right to distrust EVERYTHING is really an essential right to freedom. It's about the right to say "No". It's about having the right to say "Yes" when and if it suits YOU. Society or government then has no say or influence in what you trust or don't trust.
This is obviously not the society we live in.

Through independent sources [especially but not exclusively the internet] it's possible for individuals to become informed and intelligent enough to make choices that are far superior to those imposed upon the masses by culture, society, and politics. When people are forced into the mainstream by weight of common/average opinions and beliefs, freedom is fundamentally undermined.

The answer to the society based on trust that's imposed is organised distrust. The problem being that mainstream forces are well-organised and individuals and their individual beliefs stand alone. Individual citizens can only congregrate AS INDIVIDUALS if they congregate based on each individual's right to mistrust EVERYTHING, including each other's opinions, knowledge, and beliefs. What can bind people together is common mistrust. It's ironic.

Trust is a private matter. What ideas, institutions, or people one trusts is one's own business. Trust, therefore, doesn't need to be organised. In effect, it CAN'T be organised. What needs to be organised for people to live together in a civilized fashion is distrust and the right to distrust.

People who grow up and live in a culture based on a sea of (imposed) beliefs may feel that by breaking down THOSE values one is left with nothing. That's because one of the main concepts of modern society is that almost nothing is known. Society cultivates distrust in research, logic, and common sense. These, however, are the very things that would replace imposed beliefs.
Mainstream culture ASSUMES that there are TRUSTED individuals (necessary) who function as go-betweens, letting the masses know what research, opinions, and common sense are acceptable. By this principle and practice, it in actuality avoids and warps research, logic, and sense. Instead, the go-betweens are the real sources of accepted knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. The go-betweens are TRUSTED and what they present is what's BELIEVED. Mainstream culture assumes they're dealing with facts but it's really based on FAITH in certain accepted people, institutions, and concepts.
Someone who has only known, experienced, and come to (emotionally) rely on mainstream beliefs will likely feel uncomfortable about chucking all that aside. Mistrust would seem to offer so much less. Independent sources, however, suggest that research, logic, and common sense not only offer more, but offer legitimate answers at all.

It is always about the battle between people who put faith in others and people who put faith in (personally verifiable) research, logic, and common sense. There's really no compromise possible between these two approaches. How does one bring faith and fact together? They are inherently opposing principles.

A principle of distrust would balance the cultural forces based on (imposed) trust. It would undermine the monopoly of mandatory beliefs and therefore forces that support imposed beliefs would fight the right to mistrust at every turn (as all holders of monopolies do).
'Church & State', i.e. faith and culture, would then be divided instead of there only being a single homogenous cultural mass of acceptable concepts that are imposed on all through politics and society.

The right to distrust needs to be organised because the only organisations people have nowadays have to do with hierarchal structures that impose some kind of concepts and principles. There are no institutions that organise the right to individual principles, opinions, and knowledge. Institutions always are based on imposing some belief that the institution itself is founded on and there are no institutions founded on mistrust. That would, however, be the only kind that would ensure the safety and freedom of it's members.

An institution based on the right to mistrust would mistrust everything, everyone, and every concept. It would also have to mistrust itself. It would ONLY be about championing this right and whatever members of the organisation might wish to trust would fall outside of it's influence. Trust, belief, and faith would forever remain something it has no interest in or influence over.

The principles of Trias Politica, constitution, and division of Church & State would be part of it's construction. These would necessarily be part of it's structure at all levels, simultaneously, and interwovenly. An intelligent person or group of people who openly distrust each other, every idea, and everybody could put such together with little effort. It only takes the courage to congregate based on the above principles.
Mistrust, ironically, takes a level of maturity, psychological health, and mental independence that is rare. There are so few capable of such feats because intelligence, independence, and individuality are culled at every turn by the society based on imposed beliefs. Mankind will, however, never know freedom and true civilization until the above is put into practice.

---
READ THIS AND SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE
7/11/2012, 1:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to TheLivingShadow   Send PM to TheLivingShadow Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top