Distributing State, company management, investment finance and natural
resource ownership powers, in the context of a free market for products,
services and labor, under the assumption that money follows power.
This means: absolute State democracy, companies become employee majority
owned after starter leaves, natural resources limited use rights to be
distributed, and investment finance to be nationalized/socialized along
other infra-structural aspects of society, such as roads and health insurance.
These things are worked out into a hopefully functional law system,
comprising 239 laws divided into 9 chapters. Besides that law system
and separated from it are also provided: Referendum software (voter
verified voting), a proof of why peace & justice are consistent
with biological Darwinian evolution. Also manufactured: revolution
& reform theories, some political ideas such as: how to implement
the laws for nationalized finance, why a constantly touring national
Government will be less corrupt and how that traveling can be done,
how/why to structure health care and health insurance, schools,
education finance, home ownership/finance, taking control over the
currency, immigration, why not to make this into a violent class
You could say: all the things that we should have managed to do already,
and that where proposed and attempted before, but where beaten down for
some reason. There are also some new things, such as the unusual election
of the "electoral committee," to have it all compacted into one single
Constitution, to use a distributive swarm type revolutionary organization
rather then the marxist "singular mass party," ... It is supposed to be the
final decisive change toward an habitable human society, or at least to
exploit as far is possible the power of law and economics for the common
good. Since the system is national and not global/singular, every
country would be its own sovereign experiment, which implies there
would be many hundreds of such attempts simultaneously and continuously
and it would be impossible to deny (partial) failure, or to choke off
attempts for improvements.
These things are supposed to be functional for every people in the world,
of whatever culture, unless they love dictatorship, exploitation and
other like misery. The proposals are not Euro-centric, in fact Europe
might find it difficult to cope with such a participatory democracy from
the People upwards, since it has lived so long under the domination of
far away and strictly centralized Governments which in practice allow no
or little power for the common/casual individual. The better social skills
a People have, being able to talk and listen and debate a problem on its
merits, the better the system could function there.
Although the system is mapped out from beginning to end, the preferred
way is not a sudden shock replacement of the old system, but a slow and
careful updating of one aspect after the other; potentially halting
indefinitely after each step. Like the way history ideally finds its way;
only with a little more wind in the sails of progress, hopefully. A little
more deliberate and law oriented. Changing the law is the only goal,
everything that still goes wrong within the new law / economic system would
simply be the regular operation of society - including all the possible
scandals and possible corruption, perhaps even wars, people who go to
jail, environmental catastrophes, and so on. It should be noted that it
will be great if people form "capitalist" (private money power) or "feudal"
(private land power) political parties, and argue a case for such systems,
because that would prove such liberties exist. If they manage to form
a majority: then maybe their proposals are indeed the way to go; the
proposed law would require that it becomes the way it goes.
Such apparently absolutely horrible conditions as occurred under
capitalist dictatorships or "communist" dictatorships (typically
lacking all functional democratic protocol, much more so the content
of a real informed and subtle / intelligent democracy), where free
speech and free political action are sacrificed for the power of the
ruling clique, should not result. It is precisely the goal of this
system to prevent such tragedies from recurring. A great way to
prevent that, is not to hail one clique on the shoulders of power,
but to crown a system of law the King: the "rule of law," the law is
King. This means that the public has the ability to hold firm in its
hands those (hopefully beneficial) laws, rather then subjugate itself
to a ruling club of people (this is what already ought to be occurring
in state democracies, but it seems it is not strong enough yet). For
that reason, for example: multiple political party strategy for
implementation. Not one ruling party, not one ruling ideology either.
Perhaps only once will it be useful to wash away from power (but neither
from life, liberty or wellbeing) the legacy corruption that could have
been fostered by capitalist mechanisms of investment. Notably the law
system is designed to fight corruption, and therefore it might be
reasonably difficult for a corrupt club of people to maintain power for
long in the new law system. Everyone is perfectly free to be a capitalist,
or to be a feudalist blue blood, and they have every right to set up
their own fully sovereign countries after (if) the new law system has taken
effect (which allows new countries to be initiated through vote).
My idea is: the ruling classes are not at fault primarily, but labor is
at fault for having allowed such ignorant laws to rule life for so long.
Labor has the power because it is the great majority, it is the power
that has neglected to install a good set of laws. It is therefore absurd
to put the blame on the ruling classes. Now that everyone is declared
guilty, there is no reason to scapegoat down one of the classes of society,
which probably would not do any good anyway. Labor should have better
goals to vest its energy in, such as installing a good set of laws now,
protect freedom and life for all individuals whatever their beliefs.
Pretty soon in the new system: everyone will be both labor as in having
to work for money, but also capitalist ruling class as in having a say
in investment and company ownership, and everyone will also become landed
nobility by having land, everyone willing could also become part of the
peasant class at the same time (by farming on that or more land). These
classes will therefore disappear, and with that their antagonism.
I'd urge you not to make blind assumptions about how this is going to
work, before you find out how it is supposed to work, because things
tend to be quite different then they are now in ways that might not
be too obvious for the casual observer from the outset. For example:
not everyone is supposed to start living on his/her island of land, not
at all. Find out, then judge, thanks. Everything is designed to reduce
corruption and other abuses of power, which is assumed to appear
everywhere; moral behaviors are not assumed, but of course would be
(To prevent micro-management and needless excessive detail (not to mention
meaningless clutter), I think I will leave it at this (right or wrong).
It is up to you what will and won't happen.)
Quick identification reference of this website.
Science ? Yes !
Logical deductions, I hope.
Without a doubt this must be the most pro-democracy, anti-dictatorship
site on the Internet. It contains the results of years of programming
Internet democracy software, an extremely democratic Constitution
proposal, of which democratization of companies is an important part.
The enhancement of power of the individual through natural resource
distribution, and having nations be fully sovereign protecting the
freedom and diversity of peoples. The fundamental idea being that
democracy can successfully reduce corruption in organizations if it is
strong enough. Mixed in is the understanding that primitive trade is
beneficial and provides a self-organizing distributive principle.
Crucially: private investment capital, natural resource ownership,
and ownership of companies are not thrown into the markets together
with services, products and labor contracts. The reasons for doing it
that way are exhaustively argued and should be scientifically rigorous
beyond doubt. A fair amount of detail is built around the proposed
principles and resulting Constitution, to try to prevent serious problems
during a transition of whatever mechanism (either hard revolution or soft
progressive reform, or both), and to give the finished system as much
stability as possible to prevent a post-change collapse. The idea is
to mold the proposed system as closely as possible on the existing
situation, keeping as much standing of the present situation as possible.
The option to go back to the old system is not cut off, a transition
back to the old system (more or less, in whole or only on details)
should be easy and might have to be done in case of failure for whatever
reason. Such a transition back is not out of the question, nothing is
out of the question and nothing is beyond debate, no opinions need to
be demonized or oppressed. Even a revolutionary change is mapped out
in stages that can all take a fair amount of time, as in years. One
of the reasons to provide a revolutionary path along with a reformist
path, is to be versatile and to deny any opponents the opportunity to
block reform and force a revolution for which no plan exists. The threat
or option of a full scale - global - hard revolution can be useful in
being taken serious in making reformist demands. As everyone would know:
the first step toward revolution is strike. Thus with a hopefully
functional revolution theory in our backs, every strike can become a
frightening experience for our capitalist opponents, who are more likely
to cave in quicker if they fear the spread of revolution. Despite this:
reform is preferred, because it is less risky and more deliberate, it
is less disruptive and so on and so forth; less effort for the same result.
Besides these two old options, there is a third one that is also to be
explored simultaneously: economic warfare, fighting money with money.
That would I suppose answer the question that has haunted the socialist
and communist struggle for some time: "revolution or reform." My idea
would be: both at the same time at maximum pressure, and added to that
economic warfare and also attempt to stimulate progressive companies
(something the communists have decried in the beginning as a diversion,
but even if it is a diversion it is still going in the proper direction;
and ultimately it is something that stabilizes the social economy, one
of its main pillars for stability.) So I guess that means there are
4 platforms of battle that we'll all fight simultaneously:
- Economic investment warfare.
- Conscious and progressive consuming, rewarding green and social companies
with our consumptive money.
The first 3 here are mapped out in *extensive* detail, very extensive.
Also a scheme exists to deal with near total or total chaos, to boot up
the system and new nations from a situation of total chaos. This could
prevent our capitalist opponents to take the route of total chaos, because
if we can deal with that too (though it won't be easy), it can only blow
back into their faces.
Theory as proposed here is also making concessions of decades of waiting
for a strong majority to develop for the necessary changes, to avoid
excessive physical struggle that could all be averted by having the other
parties have more time to come to their senses and change the law in good
order. There is no principled need to use the exact 239 laws as proposed,
but it is suggested any economy will have to follow the 4 main principles
or it is likely to be in trouble (which it has every right to choose for
itself, of course).
These issues should not scare you. What should scare you is weapons of
mass destruction/oppression in the hands of the global capitalist enemy.
These weapons exist and more will be developed, it is the nature of
technology that it tends to become better and better. The question is not
whether there will be technology, the question is: who will control it.
Do you control it ? I believe the safest place to invest that kind of
power, is with the peoples, with the public. That requires democracy of
a degree that is virtually absolute. Absolute democracy, extreme democracy.
The peoples don't want war, as they'd be the first victims. The peoples
are the safest bet to place that kind of power and to see this kinds of
weapons be destroyed, even unilaterally. Do it. Away with these weapons,
we have nothing at all to fear from our brother and sister nations, whether
or not they have weapons or not. They won't hurt us if we don't hurt them.
The best strategic defense it to throw away our high yield weapons. It
shows we mean to be friends, to be good neighbors.
Note that the revolutionary theory requires all peoples in the world to
be sufficiently informed and in favor of the proposed changes before it
becomes viable even in one country, to prevent a militarized division in
political blocks. Once the information has gotten to most people(s), it
should become relatively difficult for foreign leaders to foment sufficient
lies to attack the new model militarily, as that would quite likely result
in disagreement from its population thus destabilizing that regime.
Different people, once they fully understand the proposals here,
might group the proposals of this site into a different category
because political word usage is vague and often contradictory.
Billing this site under one category may yield correct information
for a small group of people, while many others would have an
incorrect association. Therefore the following table for the
various political colors and word usage, to identify this site with
some accuracy for each group.
Group: a DAVID-economy is:
Me (Jos) My simplest categorization would be "left wing
Communism," (known Dutch category) "raden Communism"
(English) "Council Communism" (?). I consider my
system to be somewhat left of the most radical left
wing communist flavors. The reason that it contains
a free market may seem contradictory to most Communists.
I define "Communism" as an intention and not as a
defined system. Bear in mind that it is a DAVID-market,
and not a Capitalist-market. There is absolutely no
chance that this model will not contain a free market
but switch to a plan-economy, if it does not contain a
free market it is not this model anymore. Contradictory:
the free market is at the heart of this left-wing
Communist model. It doesn't get more apparently
contradictory then that perhaps, but I don't include
the free market because I'm such a fan of it from the
outset or biased in favor of it (such as the liberals
I regard Marxist-Leninist Communism as a "movement"
to the right-wing of this D.A.V.I.D. Communism, because
a complete plan-economy is utterly unmanageable and
will therefore result in the rule of a clique; which
is what happened and what we could have expected
perhaps (the absolute democratization of Government
should have succeeded immediately in 1850, at which
point the further developing of the market economy
and industrial revolution could have been fostered
by it in a positive way). Marxist-Leninist
Communism does not provide a law system, which again
suggests rule by a club of people, because if it is
not strictly rule by law then it will become rule by
certain people. Revolution by singular mass party
also suggests the end result is "rule by clique."
Of course I realize the Marxists have as their ideal
more or less a Government as I am proposing it, but if
you don't actually write down the laws for it, then
you may have that ideal but what does it actually mean
in reality (especially after a revolution) ? All the
positive ideals of Marxism-Leninism are shared on
this site, but the difference is that they are being
put into many detailed laws, and that at the center
is a market economy (!).
I understand that this more or less feels like selling
out to the capitalists. But isn't "rule by clique"
what is the big problem in capitalism, what we are
against ? That same "rule by clique" can happen in
a plan-economy; in that sense Marxism-Leninism is
actually the bourgeois: ``trust us, give us all the
power, then we will take care of you.'' That is:
"concentrate the power in us, then we will distribute
the money." No different even from the Monarchy.
The idea how the public will make sure the "best
communist worker brothers/sisters will make up that
power concentration in Government" remains largely
unspecified ("it will just happen" ?), if not
completely ignored (perhaps because of the idea that
because capitalist law is bad law, then all law must
be bad law ?) The idea of this site is different:
"distribute the power, then money will follow; give
the people power, then they will end up with more
money." This is not merely a vague idea, but a
tightly described protocol. 50% of proposed laws in
the Constitution are devoted to keep the Government
servile to the public.
However, I'd still prefer to work with the Communists
nephew / niece parties (reserving brother/sister for
like minded DAVID system parties), then the traditional
democratic/socialist parties (or even further to the
right) who by and large are sell outs to capitalism and
tend to undermine the class struggle by labor. Who
else is fundamentally opposed to private capital
investment, state- and company dictatorship, and
favors land-reform ? Who else favors true solidarity
and rejects social Darwinism (monkey-ism) ? I am
both in favor of the class struggle against oppressive
classes, and against it in the sense that I'm afraid
that "class struggle" could become a tool for
oppression in a corrupted DAVID system (compare:
corrupted Marxist-Leninist "communism"). One may note
that once this revolution sweeps over the Earth, if
it came to that, that the Marxist/Leninist parties
will probably implode if they do not start to push
for a DAVID system themselves. I have no (long term)
tactical reason to cozy up to the Marxist/Leninist
Communist parties, other then that I suspect a greater
loyalty to labor and more ability to think outside
the capitalist box there then in the other parties,
greater pressure for peace, against corruption (while
in the opposition!), etc. It seems that, predictably,
communist parties that have managed to become the
ruling class often degenerate into an oppressive
ruling class that should in principle be overthrown
I would largely disagree with the most famous
Marxist/Leninist revolutionary slogans, because they
are far too simplistic to be functional and yield
stable results (in my opinion). On the other hand,
many / most of the demands of the communist parties
where right and should have been met immediately.
Unite behind the common cause of D.A.V.I.D. law.
By the way: I disagree with the idea that the French
Revolution, or any other meaningful revolution, is a
"bourgeois" revolution. To the degree that it was
"bourgeois," that class both comprised different
people when it was potentially revolutionary, then it
eventually came to be populated by; and to a degree
it put itself in the front for control rather then
be a force behind it. I'd think: only oppressed classes
want revolution or meaningful change. To the degree
that the nobility oppressed the trading classes, that
trading class was a labor class. Once the nobility
was being pushed out more and more, financial and
industrial elements took its place as a ruling class
using the power of private investment parasitism and
manipulation. Marx can easily be understood as an
unknowing toy in the hands of capital, a toy they
kept alive to distract the working classes with an
alternative strategy and end-goal that would never
function - and hence pose no threat, but being an asset
to their control. In a military battle, it is useful
to have the enemy be diverted to useless causes; it is
no different in the struggle between labor / capital.
On the other hand, the marxist analyses of capitalism
seems to be correct.
Left wing Communism Left wing Communism on superficial notice would probably
"raden communism" see this proposal as "socialism," "socialism in the
context of a free market," thus almost grouping it in
with the "left wing bourgeois." This would be an
erroneous identification based on lack of understanding.
The problem here is that most communists haven't
understood (yet) that the world isn't a few hundred
people that you can organize through direct social
intimacy without the need for a market (that situation
comes back in my model within companies though, but
outside companies there is the free market, although
serious parts that lack competitive potential would be
(have to be) socialized permanently, including
I suggest the left wing Communists inspect closely
the suggested state model to confirm that this is
a people-friendly system, not a class-abuse system.
One may also take note of the removal of the previously
existing capitalist ruling classes from power.
I also suggest the left wing Communists study the
reason why the most simplest of trades have a
progressive nature to them (primitive non-capitalist
trade). Once understood fully, there shouldn't be
Basic "mass party" These people would probably also know my system as
Communism, "socialism," but in a positive way, as "much better
Leninists (?) then capitalism." Basic communists might be amused
by the assumption that the organizations of the
proletariat itself are assumed to corrupt on short
notice. If not adequately kept to formal democratic
internal protocol at least, protocols which are supplied
extensively. Basic communists might find the idea
of land distribution interesting, and find a
precedent for just about every proposal here within
the communist/socialist/democratic struggles of the
past. I'm not saying the proposals here necessarily
comprise anything really new, they are not fundamentally
new at all. The difference here is that they get
proven scientifically and fundamentally with little
room for doubt. Some ideas fall out as wrong (plan
economy), others fall out as right (state democracy),
but the essence of these proposals is its own
economic analyzes quite divorced from any previously
existing theory. It is then worked out in very great
detail, something no communist movement has yet done
(to my knowledge). "Law" is believed to be just about
the greatest and most important power. Not the
"revolutionary vanguard," which is in fact assumed
to corrupt, and in any case is no basis to found a
state on. A state which is to survive the lives of
that "revolutionary vanguard" by many centuries
(millennia, millions of years) at the very least.
The fact that the DAVID economy sports a free market
will probably set most communists on the wrong foot.
If they can see through this contradiction ("free
market communism"), then there should not be any
Socialists: Socialists would probably find my system "extremely
radical, revolutionary, scary." The socialists are
usually scared to change the system fundamentally.
However a scientifically reasonable identification
of my system is "socialism."
Various vaguely left wing bourgeois groups, and religions:
Functional, coherent is perhaps a way to describe it
for these groups. It is functional (I think it is
functional), coherent, thought through and so on, with
a view toward stability. It is also a "known" system,
unlike socialism and communism which are big
"unknowns," thus "risky."
Liberal Actually this system is also very liberal, as it gives
people ownership of land, free speech, access to local,
provincial and state power, freedom of speech, freedom
of political organization, potential freedom to be in
a different sovereignty (a freedom that is destroyed
in the single-world/continental-government idea).
My system could be called "an ambitious liberal and
democratic system, all described in law already."
Capitalists In as far as this is a livelihood, a racket, and not
a political dimension: the capitalists might call this
system "thinking about a career change toward the
productive markets, because we can't resist this and
we'll just have to roll with it if we're going to make
it to next year." In other words: "the end." Or:
choose between reactionary violence, or folding in
riding the waves like everyone else has to. The
capitalist "rank & file" will probably actually hope
that the DAVID system laws are followed precisely
enough, so that there will be no international wars,
which is the largest source of instability & death.
Interesting contradiction there, or could be I guess.
American: The Americans tend to use "socialism" to mean
"oppressive dictatorial plan economy," rather then
"social intention." The Americans tend to use the
word "socialism" for the worst forms of "historical
socialism," although it is also sometimes used to
denote the European softer form of capitalism (where
labor has managed to enforce more improvements,
thus the softness is actually the work of labor,
and not the work of capitalism; it is a balance
of power between socialism and capitalist, not a
different form of capitalism on its own.) For an
American this system can therefore not be called
"socialism," because it is the very opposite of
dictatorship and (total) plan economy. There is an
element of democratic planning in the economy through
democratized business investment finance. This is to
be planning in the interest of the people and under
their control, rather then planning in the interest of
private profit for capitalists against the interests
of labor. Note that the democratized finance is a
politically neutral term: you can use the democratic
power any way, to improve the living conditions of
labor, or to worsen them; to increase economic growth
through exploitation - long hours for little pay -
or do other things. It is essentially a politically
neutral system. It distributes power, it does not
force moral law. The amount of intervention in the
economy by the finance power is also undetermined:
the markets can be left alone completely, or they
can be extensively and almost completely shaped and
molded into a desired form. The idea is to make the
state so extensively democratic, that the state is no
longer to an extend the enemy of the people, but its
faithful and enthusiastic servant, in its own interest
(re-election). It is a balance of power system,
distributing power, hopefully in a functional way.
The system will probably be best known as the end of
their efforts. The transnational dimension could
become more culturally dominated, about comparing
policy, tourism, trade in products. The idea to
turn the whole world into one nation under one
central Government would be ended (you could say:
it was tried already, and it failed miserably).
The excuse transnationalists would use is that there
would be less war if the whole world would be one
nation. The major cause of war is however the corrupt
ruling classes. If that corruption can be eliminated
or reduced in most/all nations, peace would result.
Contrary to that: the grand transnational Government
would be effectively insulated from any meaningful
democratic protocol, and thus be corrupted quickly
and with little recourse for the people. In other
words: transnationalist ruling class people their
most important argument is their very own (or at
least "their colleagues") corruption, incompetence,
greed and ruthless criminal intentions. The problem
is solved in another way here, one that has a chance
of working I hope. The transnationalists would call
it therefore: "an ambitious hopefully somewhat rational
attempt to create world-peace through heavy handed
national democratic protocol and hoping the public
also wishes for military peace, or would learn to
love peace after more wars." The amount of democracy
presented here might be beyond the scope of what the
ruling class transnationalists would believe possible,
since it most likely means the end of all their power
positions. Not very well intended ruling class people
then probably want to be against this system, which
generally removes them from power. To the better
intended people I'd say: "give it a try, I believe
it will work sufficiently because the laws are all
so tightly described."
Peace ? Future ?
They probably define it as: "First seeing, then
believing." That is probably the best definition
of them all. As a law and economic system it does
not have an inherent environmental dimension,
although I'm very much concerned with the deterioration
3rd world: I really hope it will do a lot for these countries,
particularly re-organize their state systems to
reduce corruption, crime, and plutocracy, also war.
I suppose they'd simply call it "socialism." In
opposition to that, the 1st world is probably going
to see a re-balancing of economic power and wealth
with the third world, so that means less wealth in
the first world because it was robbed out of the
3rd world. However, technical industries do much to
increase all wealth for everyone, therefore the
relative decrease does not have to (but could) result
in an absolute decrease in wealth in the 1st world.
Scientists: It is simply economics, quite natural and neutral.
Economics as a science, as it should be, rather then
as an ideology or collections of ideologies. It is
a non-radical theory in the sense that a set of laws
that is meant to solve a problem could be another
set of laws as well. In another sense it is a
coherent logical theory, which leaves little
room for doubt about the main points. It is
strict because the logic is strict. But at some
point logic stops and taste starts; logic is not
assumed to rule it all the way into the tiniest
details. Following the same logic one could build
quite a different model out of it. A "democratic
state" is a principle, but how it exactly should be
is largely a matter of taste. "Correct" is defined
as "how people like to live in it," which is by
definition subjective rather then objective. On the
other hand, one could do objective research as to
what system makes people happiest.
Nationalists, semi-criminal ultra-right wing demagoguish nationalists:
They might actually be quite happy with the system,
which has as its basic building block the fully
sovereign nation, not too large (not larger then
100 million, preferably larger then 1 million).
Fully sovereign means exactly that: its own coin,
its own army, its own sovereign state proces above
which no treaty holds power, no international justice
jurisdiction. Fully sovereign. The nationalists might
call it "people's liberation."
Elitists, bourgeois: They might call it "creativity run wild." But what
isn't ... Ideally the proposed system is merely
an example of the 4 logical points. The system,
nation, economy, is slowly and carefully changed
to implement a system that works better. It is
not a class war, it is an attempt to improve laws.
Class war would become irrelevant when the system
does no longer produce opposing classes. Communists
would probably have to agree. Don't fight it,
bourgeoisie, don't make this into a class war. You
started the class war with your exploitation, lies
and oppresion, war. We are ending it, we're ending
the existence of opposing classes (labor/capital).
Anarchists Once the anarchists see it, they probably feel quite
satisfied with the improvements. Improvements which
give them a lot more power and freedom, and even the
realistic change to do many new experiments and even
become sovereign nations (you need more then 1 million
anarchists living on a border of a nation, ideally,
then it is a matter of voting protocol until you are
sovereign.) The red/black anarchists will probably
love the system; the black anarchists may think of it
as a vast improvement and see opportunity to advance
their cause of freedom further in a much easier way.
There is somewhat contradiction with anarchists, in
that this system focusses on law as primary, but in
a good way that is exactly what anarchism is about:
no longer the rule of the power hierarchy, but the
rule of reason and all people equal. I hope the
anarchists will study the system closely because the
many laws might otherwise seem a deterrent. I think
the anarchists might want to call the system "an
ambitious attempt for improvement," and hope they'll
support it until we all know how it works. Then later
there should always be time to go on and do things
different again, hopefully starting from an improved
national and global position. Total chaos can not be
the real goal of the anarchists, even anarchists will
call meetings together to discuss things. In a big way
that is all this system is: a series of meetings,
organizations that can be set up or are to be set up
to deal with various aspects of life. Hopefully in a
functional way. If it isn't functional, then it is
I hope people will see through the idiosyncrasies of this site, and focus
on the essential social science. I also hope that people will divorce
their agreement or disagreement with this system, from their possible
dislike (or like, I guess) of me personally. Democracy needs an objective
attitude to the content of proposals, content of proposals can not be
judged by the like-ability of the person/group making the proposal. At best an
initial guess can result from assumptions about a person/group, but
once the decision has been made to investigate a proposal then the proposing
party becomes irrelevant (unless it includes giving representative power
to that person). Since this site its proposal is exhaustive in its detail,
there should not even result informal representative power from filling in
blank details with new creative effort. (The reason to provide complete
exhaustive detail beforehand is for revolutionary strategy.) People who
decide policy on the like-ability of the proposing party: please go
elsewhere, thank you; you are probably better off playing with the present
day system of puppet regimes and big media shows on who your next ruler is
going to be. If you want more democracy then that, if you are interested
in content rather then personality, if you are willing to put your hand
on the wheel of state and/or the wheel of your business (or other type of
productive group), then maybe this is an option you could consider. Note that
taking small elements of the proposals, and merging them with the existing
system/law is the preferred way of implementation.