(This is an audio recording for anyone who would rather listen than read): It is time to stop waiting for “authorities” to fix our corrupt systems. In America, We The People are supposed to be the government. Let’s reclaim our seat at the bargaining table and start holding anyone who corrupts our systems accountable by creating a new
Feb 19, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
This is absolutely what must be done. Home schooling, crowd-funding (though presently compromised by being controlled by big financial institutions, as we saw in Canada), crypto, supporting citizen journalists and small independent media of one's choice, open-source software like Apache and so on. There are already newly independent medical networks already being formed by world-class doctors and medical scientists who were maligned and lied about by 'the authorities' during the past couple of years. Much that can be done. Longer term vision is to push for legislative changes in the balance between what you call the 4th branch (and I usually call 'cultural institutions') and govt / corp.
Also might be of interest, this video in which a 'constitutional expert' advises that the public actually have legal powers that they are not aware of having. (It's based on UK, but similar situations may exist elsewhere): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3KDFeaSK0
Feb 20, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
I'm with you on most of this. Let me put my take on the Libyan model where the people held the power in broad keeping with what you have suggested above.
Gaddafi guided his people (who were from different & often deeply feuding tribes) towards a system he called Jamahiriya, or 'State of the Masses' where Peoples Congresses everywhere was the order of the day and it was highly successful bringing prosperity & peace to all in pre-NATO days. He had a couple of bedrock rules - no political parties allowed and absolutely no usury whatsoever; that is to say no lending of money at interest. He gave the people Full Participatory Democracy while rejecting representative 'democracy'.
Here is a video of Gaddafi fearlessly riding around Tripoli to the acclaim of the people. I place this short video here as it has information as to what the Libyans decided to welcome into their life, politically & economically speaking. On that score alone it's well worth a watch IMO. https://vimeo.com/28700488
While I was there working in the mid-80s I picked up his 'Green Book' in which he explains his thinking & vision. Now it's available in pdf & again well worth a look to see how the empowered Libyan society ticked. http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf A customs officer at Gatwick begged the book off me saying he wasn't taking it from me officially but he's absolutely busting to read it which I found a little strange but that's by the by. Even the Establishment can't machine gun an idea whose time has come.
It was clear to me that the West wanted to destroy the works of both Gaddafi & Libyans essentially because the Cameron, Sarkhozi & Bernard-Henri Lévy, Clinton, Obama & other psychopaths couldn't bear the prospect of the rest of the world cottoning on to the solid proof that another [far better] way was possible. Don't forget that NATO left a destroyed Libya where open air slave markets now flourish without a single shred of interest from the psychopaths of the West. We'll be up against this dangerous class of madmen & women so it's as well to be aware of that.
Feb 19, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
Great work!
Like most things, governing doesn't scale well. Hell, even my dog is a dissident these days.
Lots of work to do, and you are right in that this work needs to start now, while we still have a means of communication.
One thing i will not tolerate if we survive this is a freedom leader that 'woke up' to this mess in post 2020. The ONLY dissidents that should be asked to serve as governing mentors are people with a long history of fighting tyranny ( the ones still alive)? I will not support some Utopian idea by a think tank of elected NEWBIES. If that happens i will drown myself with alcohol as i had been doing all my life until this plandemic activated me and gave me hope of some possibility of REAL CHANGE in humanity!!!
Lets see.... if I can get one person to agree with me on one item of my 'Utopian' vision- NO 'VOLUNTARY 'or PAID LEADERS! They must be ASKED to serve. The more involuntary, the better?
Schools should teach one subject, with all others coat-tailing - subject to be called- LIES LIES and more lies. or something like that?
People are always saying 'question everything'. Do they? Do they question themselves? do they question the question? Why then do some go silent when they are questioned? Do they not understand that understanding debating requires the ability to argue both sides, and that debating is not a competition- it is a search for a truth in flux?
Uncovering my own honest motivations helps me to understand other people's.
Hmmm, sorry to be the contrarian in the room again, but several things are wrong here.
First, all if this, with the possible exception of national referendum votes already exists. "Independent media, citizen investigators, even tribunals, albeit without any enforcement power.
Second, America never was, is not and should never be a direct democracy. Direct democracies are fraught with corruption, always turn to anarchy and ALWAYS fail.
Third, crypto is a great idea in a stable techno-centric society, but faster than you can say nanosecond, the NSA (or worse) turns off the ability to intercommunicate. Even relying on cold vaults won't work peer to peer with out some form of communication.
Lastly, decentralization is what our founding fathers had in mind with Federalism. Limited federal gov't, with all additional rights held by the states, and more importantly the people. That "right" still exists, and it is long overdue to be exercised. Our "what can the gov't do for me, instantly, and paid for by someone else" society is in its death spiral, if sanity doesn't poke it's head out from the covers, SOON.
Feb 21, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
More thoughts: What encourages me greatly is the number of people thinking in broadly similar ways about need for new social structures. Despite the clear common ground, we need lots and lots of dialogue and engagement between us to achieve higher and higher degrees of shared understanding and better and better conceptual frameworks.
Here is a small but possibly important twist on ‘4th branch of government’. (Presumably being it addition to the legislative, executive and judiciary): I see the new ‘people powered’ institutions not as part of government at all. If we consider government as one set of institutions and the corporate world as a second, then perhaps the new institutions sit outside of both and hold both to account. After all, both are supposed to serve society.
Further, I see the responsibility of that new set of institutions (‘cultural institutions’ in my language) as ultimately having responsibilities far beyond holding to account the other two. (Though certainly that as well). They should eventually be directly responsible for everything that is ‘cultural’, which includes for instance education, science, medicine, the media, even the means of exchange, and more. Even functions which don’t really exist at all right now, but should, like collaborating with production facilities to align production with need. (https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes). Our answer to those who declare that utopian or unrealistic is that it has already begun to happen, in home schooling, crypto, alternative media voluntarily funded by readers, the new medical networks being set up by those world-class scientists who were ostracised for challenging the propaganda of the past years, etc etc.
The role of government then is to define the legislative ‘rights framework’ through which itself, the corporate world and the emerging ‘cultural institutions’ interact.
A major benefit is that we may responsibilities eventually devolved away from government, a) government actually stands a chance is succeeding its remit – which it doesn’t at the moment because it’s too big (control the world and everything in it), and b) when it is time to vote, and the manifesto is only about a rights framework and not a manifesto for fixing education, and the economy, and obesity and the healthcare system, and culture, and all the other things which should be in the hands of the people. The big new in that, is then the people will stand a chance both of understanding what they are voting for, and holding the government to account on it.
Net result: we gradually get something like direct democracy in the running of the many cultural aspects of society, but we still vote for a legislative body to define the over-arching (and still I believe necessary), rights framework.
Feb 19, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
If it includes the circuit courts of appeal which have excused Christy Todd Whitman for tellling people it was safe to work at ground zero despite her own data showing otherwise, and was held by the 2nd circuit as not at fault because she was only trying to not upset people....count me in.
Jun 9, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
Lot of good stuff to chew on here as a starter. One observation is a decentralized 'press' where questions are upvoted is problematic as it's not the initial question that makes great journalism and informs, but often the follow up questions when the subject tries to lie, distort or steer away from the question. And for that, you need honest brokers or perhaps a 2 person interviewing team from both sides of the spectrum as they used to do in 'Crossfire' and other shows. All in all, there's some great stuff here .
Jun 8, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
Great ideas. I hope some, all or at least one gets implemented somehow.
The biggest problem with decentralised is that it only works if we have the internet, any other communication medium is too slow and expensive. The powers that still be do have a hand on the kill switch of the internet and are scurrying about making it easier for them to selectively turn off opposing internet activity. Censorship will soon allow packet filtering of naughty traffic, sometimes with no indication why it does not travel.
I think another topic should be distributed communications networks. Look at Meshtastic and other similar projects, with some thought and support one of them might be made scaleable and provide a shadow internet that can travel over the existing internet in IoT data packets from toasters and fridges to other peoples toasters and fridges while appearing to be mundane machine data. Imagine if your smart fridge could be used to send and receive text messages using your WiFi tablet as a user interface. No direct internet connection.
Mar 20, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
There are actually some politicians who are and who are determined to stay outside the centralized system of control. I would need a lot more due diligence to know if they are the candidates we could or should trust.
Feb 22, 2023Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
Hi,
I broadly agree that the model or organisation we live under is now a bad one. It was at the beginning good compared to the feudalism it replaced, but the world it has to deal with has changed, and it has evolved in some corrupt and unbalanced ways. It is even still very good in parts, but its flaws and limitations are now grievous, and our situation as you say dangerous. I think are about right in the four possibilities we have in front of us, and I’m inclined to think we’ll actually do two or more of them in overlapping waves.
Your proposal I have mixed reaction to, but I think that is normal. All of us grappling with the problem of ‘a way forward’ will see it a little differently, and getting a little ‘alchemy’ going between those slightly different takes must be an indispensible part of it – public debate is the motor of any and all positive change!
I feel that we must create people-powered institutions to do a lot more than hold to account government, though they must have that objective too. (As I’ve touched upon elsewhere, home-schooling, independent medical networks, voluntarily funded citizen journalism and small independent media etc, alternative ‘means of exchange’, all of which are already in progress, and more.
There are several elements of your proposal that resonate with me. As a short term strategy, I think the Jane Doe idea is very interesting. So is the idea of a parallel means of validating the electoral process. That one seems like it would be a pretty massive challenge to do at a meaningful and effective level, but if it could be done it would be great. Even among some of the commentators I respect most, there are very divided opinions about whether and to what extent the current system is being rigged, but I’m generally on the side that it is. Even an imperfect attempt at validation might raise awareness of the issue among more people.
On the other hand, the process is extensively controlled through education and media too – so back to the need to take back some ‘direct control’ in those areas.
I also agree that there is an issue to be recognised re ‘the tyranny of the mass’ problem. (I’ve offered my thoughts on that on your ‘Let’s Build a Fourth Branch of Government piece). I’m broadly with you on ‘decentralisation’, and the need to work at bringing more people on board with a new vision.
I have strong reservations however on the idea that ‘blockchain is going to save the world’. Ultimately there is nothing digital that cannot be hacked, or if not, abused. I know blockchain appears unhackable, but AI is moving fast and there is no way of knowing where it is going to go. Even if it is unhackable, I’m strongly inclined to put more weight on human solutions than technological ones. I worked in the field of I.T. myself, right back from the 1980’s, and I think all evidence over 40 years shows that handing more and more control to software brings more negatives than positives. We have to use technology, but foremost we need more human engagement and more human participation and more selectivity and care in the application of digital technology.
I’m not saying technology can play no part in solutions. It’s here, and we have to find ways of using it for the good. (The very fact that I’m a Substack writer attests to that belief). But if we make that the main plank of our drive for a better world, instead of human solutions, we are likely to regret it. Difficult issue, and I see this only as the opening of a dialogue on it – a note of caution. We want a more human world, not a more digital world.
The only way to decentralize is to take the monopoly power of elastic money away from private banks and nationalize the banks like Alexander Hamilton accomplished with the "American System" of government. AmericanSystemNow.com
Remember that electronic voting cannot be allowed.
All final votes have to be by secret ballot (once the 100% captured people are out of the leadership).
I have been thinking about how this could be done for many years now and have a new idea that may actually be workable. A two part voting slip each part has a UNIQUE RANDOM number with a basic barcode. Each voter takes a slip from a lottery tumbler at random tears off one part and drops it into the voters roll bin. Each voter writes his vote onto the other part and drops it into the vote bin. When the votes are counted each vote needs to have a counterfoil in the voters roll bin to verify that the vote is valid.
This is absolutely what must be done. Home schooling, crowd-funding (though presently compromised by being controlled by big financial institutions, as we saw in Canada), crypto, supporting citizen journalists and small independent media of one's choice, open-source software like Apache and so on. There are already newly independent medical networks already being formed by world-class doctors and medical scientists who were maligned and lied about by 'the authorities' during the past couple of years. Much that can be done. Longer term vision is to push for legislative changes in the balance between what you call the 4th branch (and I usually call 'cultural institutions') and govt / corp.
Some perspectives on that longer term vision HERE https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/good-government and HERE https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy.
Also might be of interest, this video in which a 'constitutional expert' advises that the public actually have legal powers that they are not aware of having. (It's based on UK, but similar situations may exist elsewhere): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3KDFeaSK0
Also this from a guy who is one of my own substack readers, on approaches to holding power to account: https://treasonableman.wordpress.com/foundations-of-accountability/
The first step in what is likely to be a long battle is enough people having a shared vision of what is possible.
Stay on the case!
I'm with you on most of this. Let me put my take on the Libyan model where the people held the power in broad keeping with what you have suggested above.
Gaddafi guided his people (who were from different & often deeply feuding tribes) towards a system he called Jamahiriya, or 'State of the Masses' where Peoples Congresses everywhere was the order of the day and it was highly successful bringing prosperity & peace to all in pre-NATO days. He had a couple of bedrock rules - no political parties allowed and absolutely no usury whatsoever; that is to say no lending of money at interest. He gave the people Full Participatory Democracy while rejecting representative 'democracy'.
Here is a video of Gaddafi fearlessly riding around Tripoli to the acclaim of the people. I place this short video here as it has information as to what the Libyans decided to welcome into their life, politically & economically speaking. On that score alone it's well worth a watch IMO. https://vimeo.com/28700488
While I was there working in the mid-80s I picked up his 'Green Book' in which he explains his thinking & vision. Now it's available in pdf & again well worth a look to see how the empowered Libyan society ticked. http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf A customs officer at Gatwick begged the book off me saying he wasn't taking it from me officially but he's absolutely busting to read it which I found a little strange but that's by the by. Even the Establishment can't machine gun an idea whose time has come.
It was clear to me that the West wanted to destroy the works of both Gaddafi & Libyans essentially because the Cameron, Sarkhozi & Bernard-Henri Lévy, Clinton, Obama & other psychopaths couldn't bear the prospect of the rest of the world cottoning on to the solid proof that another [far better] way was possible. Don't forget that NATO left a destroyed Libya where open air slave markets now flourish without a single shred of interest from the psychopaths of the West. We'll be up against this dangerous class of madmen & women so it's as well to be aware of that.
Great work!
Like most things, governing doesn't scale well. Hell, even my dog is a dissident these days.
Lots of work to do, and you are right in that this work needs to start now, while we still have a means of communication.
One thing i will not tolerate if we survive this is a freedom leader that 'woke up' to this mess in post 2020. The ONLY dissidents that should be asked to serve as governing mentors are people with a long history of fighting tyranny ( the ones still alive)? I will not support some Utopian idea by a think tank of elected NEWBIES. If that happens i will drown myself with alcohol as i had been doing all my life until this plandemic activated me and gave me hope of some possibility of REAL CHANGE in humanity!!!
Lets see.... if I can get one person to agree with me on one item of my 'Utopian' vision- NO 'VOLUNTARY 'or PAID LEADERS! They must be ASKED to serve. The more involuntary, the better?
Schools should teach one subject, with all others coat-tailing - subject to be called- LIES LIES and more lies. or something like that?
People are always saying 'question everything'. Do they? Do they question themselves? do they question the question? Why then do some go silent when they are questioned? Do they not understand that understanding debating requires the ability to argue both sides, and that debating is not a competition- it is a search for a truth in flux?
Uncovering my own honest motivations helps me to understand other people's.
https://justindaws.substack.com/p/dostoyevsky-onwards-and-upwards-buffoons
Hmmm, sorry to be the contrarian in the room again, but several things are wrong here.
First, all if this, with the possible exception of national referendum votes already exists. "Independent media, citizen investigators, even tribunals, albeit without any enforcement power.
Second, America never was, is not and should never be a direct democracy. Direct democracies are fraught with corruption, always turn to anarchy and ALWAYS fail.
Third, crypto is a great idea in a stable techno-centric society, but faster than you can say nanosecond, the NSA (or worse) turns off the ability to intercommunicate. Even relying on cold vaults won't work peer to peer with out some form of communication.
Lastly, decentralization is what our founding fathers had in mind with Federalism. Limited federal gov't, with all additional rights held by the states, and more importantly the people. That "right" still exists, and it is long overdue to be exercised. Our "what can the gov't do for me, instantly, and paid for by someone else" society is in its death spiral, if sanity doesn't poke it's head out from the covers, SOON.
More thoughts: What encourages me greatly is the number of people thinking in broadly similar ways about need for new social structures. Despite the clear common ground, we need lots and lots of dialogue and engagement between us to achieve higher and higher degrees of shared understanding and better and better conceptual frameworks.
Here is a small but possibly important twist on ‘4th branch of government’. (Presumably being it addition to the legislative, executive and judiciary): I see the new ‘people powered’ institutions not as part of government at all. If we consider government as one set of institutions and the corporate world as a second, then perhaps the new institutions sit outside of both and hold both to account. After all, both are supposed to serve society.
Further, I see the responsibility of that new set of institutions (‘cultural institutions’ in my language) as ultimately having responsibilities far beyond holding to account the other two. (Though certainly that as well). They should eventually be directly responsible for everything that is ‘cultural’, which includes for instance education, science, medicine, the media, even the means of exchange, and more. Even functions which don’t really exist at all right now, but should, like collaborating with production facilities to align production with need. (https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-economist-is-wearing-no-clothes). Our answer to those who declare that utopian or unrealistic is that it has already begun to happen, in home schooling, crypto, alternative media voluntarily funded by readers, the new medical networks being set up by those world-class scientists who were ostracised for challenging the propaganda of the past years, etc etc.
The role of government then is to define the legislative ‘rights framework’ through which itself, the corporate world and the emerging ‘cultural institutions’ interact.
A major benefit is that we may responsibilities eventually devolved away from government, a) government actually stands a chance is succeeding its remit – which it doesn’t at the moment because it’s too big (control the world and everything in it), and b) when it is time to vote, and the manifesto is only about a rights framework and not a manifesto for fixing education, and the economy, and obesity and the healthcare system, and culture, and all the other things which should be in the hands of the people. The big new in that, is then the people will stand a chance both of understanding what they are voting for, and holding the government to account on it.
Net result: we gradually get something like direct democracy in the running of the many cultural aspects of society, but we still vote for a legislative body to define the over-arching (and still I believe necessary), rights framework.
A hint at the broadly archetypal (natural) basis of this arrangement here: https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-failed-mantra-of-the-french-revolution
And some thoughts on funding such cultural institutions here: https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy
So much food for thought here. Even the first concept would take us a long way.
If it includes the circuit courts of appeal which have excused Christy Todd Whitman for tellling people it was safe to work at ground zero despite her own data showing otherwise, and was held by the 2nd circuit as not at fault because she was only trying to not upset people....count me in.
Lot of good stuff to chew on here as a starter. One observation is a decentralized 'press' where questions are upvoted is problematic as it's not the initial question that makes great journalism and informs, but often the follow up questions when the subject tries to lie, distort or steer away from the question. And for that, you need honest brokers or perhaps a 2 person interviewing team from both sides of the spectrum as they used to do in 'Crossfire' and other shows. All in all, there's some great stuff here .
Great ideas. I hope some, all or at least one gets implemented somehow.
The biggest problem with decentralised is that it only works if we have the internet, any other communication medium is too slow and expensive. The powers that still be do have a hand on the kill switch of the internet and are scurrying about making it easier for them to selectively turn off opposing internet activity. Censorship will soon allow packet filtering of naughty traffic, sometimes with no indication why it does not travel.
I think another topic should be distributed communications networks. Look at Meshtastic and other similar projects, with some thought and support one of them might be made scaleable and provide a shadow internet that can travel over the existing internet in IoT data packets from toasters and fridges to other peoples toasters and fridges while appearing to be mundane machine data. Imagine if your smart fridge could be used to send and receive text messages using your WiFi tablet as a user interface. No direct internet connection.
I can see this becoming abusive. We already have a back up monetary system we just need a functioning Decentralized exchange. Let's support it!!!
There are actually some politicians who are and who are determined to stay outside the centralized system of control. I would need a lot more due diligence to know if they are the candidates we could or should trust.
Hi,
I broadly agree that the model or organisation we live under is now a bad one. It was at the beginning good compared to the feudalism it replaced, but the world it has to deal with has changed, and it has evolved in some corrupt and unbalanced ways. It is even still very good in parts, but its flaws and limitations are now grievous, and our situation as you say dangerous. I think are about right in the four possibilities we have in front of us, and I’m inclined to think we’ll actually do two or more of them in overlapping waves.
Your proposal I have mixed reaction to, but I think that is normal. All of us grappling with the problem of ‘a way forward’ will see it a little differently, and getting a little ‘alchemy’ going between those slightly different takes must be an indispensible part of it – public debate is the motor of any and all positive change!
I feel that we must create people-powered institutions to do a lot more than hold to account government, though they must have that objective too. (As I’ve touched upon elsewhere, home-schooling, independent medical networks, voluntarily funded citizen journalism and small independent media etc, alternative ‘means of exchange’, all of which are already in progress, and more.
There are several elements of your proposal that resonate with me. As a short term strategy, I think the Jane Doe idea is very interesting. So is the idea of a parallel means of validating the electoral process. That one seems like it would be a pretty massive challenge to do at a meaningful and effective level, but if it could be done it would be great. Even among some of the commentators I respect most, there are very divided opinions about whether and to what extent the current system is being rigged, but I’m generally on the side that it is. Even an imperfect attempt at validation might raise awareness of the issue among more people.
On the other hand, the process is extensively controlled through education and media too – so back to the need to take back some ‘direct control’ in those areas.
I also agree that there is an issue to be recognised re ‘the tyranny of the mass’ problem. (I’ve offered my thoughts on that on your ‘Let’s Build a Fourth Branch of Government piece). I’m broadly with you on ‘decentralisation’, and the need to work at bringing more people on board with a new vision.
I have strong reservations however on the idea that ‘blockchain is going to save the world’. Ultimately there is nothing digital that cannot be hacked, or if not, abused. I know blockchain appears unhackable, but AI is moving fast and there is no way of knowing where it is going to go. Even if it is unhackable, I’m strongly inclined to put more weight on human solutions than technological ones. I worked in the field of I.T. myself, right back from the 1980’s, and I think all evidence over 40 years shows that handing more and more control to software brings more negatives than positives. We have to use technology, but foremost we need more human engagement and more human participation and more selectivity and care in the application of digital technology.
I’m not saying technology can play no part in solutions. It’s here, and we have to find ways of using it for the good. (The very fact that I’m a Substack writer attests to that belief). But if we make that the main plank of our drive for a better world, instead of human solutions, we are likely to regret it. Difficult issue, and I see this only as the opening of a dialogue on it – a note of caution. We want a more human world, not a more digital world.
Thanks Michelle. I look forward to any comments you have on it!
The only way to decentralize is to take the monopoly power of elastic money away from private banks and nationalize the banks like Alexander Hamilton accomplished with the "American System" of government. AmericanSystemNow.com
Shoutout to James O'Keefe for his implementation of decentralized investigative journalism.
Remember that electronic voting cannot be allowed.
All final votes have to be by secret ballot (once the 100% captured people are out of the leadership).
I have been thinking about how this could be done for many years now and have a new idea that may actually be workable. A two part voting slip each part has a UNIQUE RANDOM number with a basic barcode. Each voter takes a slip from a lottery tumbler at random tears off one part and drops it into the voters roll bin. Each voter writes his vote onto the other part and drops it into the vote bin. When the votes are counted each vote needs to have a counterfoil in the voters roll bin to verify that the vote is valid.