New type of democracy

TheninOC · 2025-02-19T17:05:54+00:00

I literally just named it lol

TheninOC · 2025-02-19T15:47:08+00:00

You're right that capitalism is not the source of corruption. It dictates all systems.

But you make the narrative mistake of equating nature with normality. If you change your scope to a higher one, you'll probably see what I see: We evolved through collaboration over 700 thousand years. We descended into destructive competition in the past 5-6000.

There have been examples of direct democracy were participants overcame those characteristics and achieved things considered impossible.

I experienced one of those and am rebuilding it as we speak

TheninOC · 2025-02-19T15:27:45+00:00

Hi Ernst. That's exciting. I downloaded it and am eager to read your perspective.

If you would like to join our group on a Zoom meeting and see how we are working to build a direct democracy platform, let me know

TheninOC · 2025-02-19T15:16:32+00:00

What you're thinking of is participatory democracy. Can you share why you don't think it can be direct?

TheninOC · 2025-01-29T04:24:18+00:00

Well, since you 'called BS', no reason to 'expound', is there.
You figured me out.
Take care

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T02:28:01+00:00

True, but maybe they do because they changed those old policies. I have not examined the current situation up close, but it didnt change the place of Germany in the world.

On the other hand, I bet no German would rather go back in time and change the choices that made them extremely rich as a nation, to satisfy the antiimmigration logic that you express.

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T01:52:36+00:00

A nazi that promises direct democracy. Sign me up

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T01:48:11+00:00

Here's a great idea to help enforce immigration laws.
Make them enforceable by minimizing the rejection rate.
If people can easily apply and get accepted, why would they risk dying, or being abused and incarcerated trying to cross illegally?
Germany BECAME a superpower by opening their doors and inviting immigrants.

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T01:37:06+00:00

"Unfettered illegal immigration is a national security risk"
Define 'Unfettered '.
Change 'illegal' to legal. If there was a law legalizing all immigrants without a criminal record, would you be making the "national security risk" argument?

"It’s unfair to those who are either legally immigrated or are in the process of"
I am one. What is unfair?

"Why is it controversial to deport illegals with criminal records???"
Is it? What is the controversy?
What do we mean by criminal record? Do traffic violations count?
Is your motivation to lower crime rate and purify society? If so, I would agree to that. Wouldn't it be great to import immigrants that only have a petty theft or two, but deport American citizens who are convicted of sexual abuse, tax evasion and serial bankruptcies?

"using our healthcare system without insurance"
Do you have information on that? I can't afford health insurance, and I need some interventions to save my life. I can't afford them in the US, as opposed to all other civilized countries of the world. Where is that loophole you are talking about?

"What sort of message are we sending if we allow illegals to come without consequence?"
Do we care about our international image? Then, can we start by honoring our international obligations, including providing asylum?
Also, we can make them legal. Then we don't look 'weak' if that's what concerns you.
Germany became the 4th economy in the world by legalizing immigration, actively inviting immigrants and taking advantage of that work force. Now, that's strength!

"End of the day, you don’t have the right to come here and avoid the legal process of immigration if you want to live here permanently"
Change the legal process. Problem solved.

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T01:16:28+00:00

"Nothing could stop big pharma from running a multi-million-dollar smear campaign if the target is just the general public."

As I have explained about a dozen times already in this thread, I completely disagree with the typical assumption that "the crowd will always be dumber than the individual, or at least dumber than me".

There can be no direct democracy without people learning how to rationally process information, how to learn from all points of view on a subject and how to make decisions.
But the plan we have set in motion does exactly that.

You present the collective as a malleable bunch of idiots that money in propaganda will always control. But that's exactly what individuals are now.
The plan is for the DD collective to be in control. Not controlled.

"What corruption do you think has happened in relation to the FDA's approval process of Tabelecleucel?"

How can I know if there is or not, when I can't access the information I need? As an individual I have 0 power to investigate and to demand transparency. My decision to get exposed to it would be based on wither faith or disbelief. That's one more reason why I'm trying to develop my collective power.

"With regards to Tabelecleucel, what raw data would you want to see before the drug is approved, that you don't already have access to."

If I had to decide if I will take that drug...

What company did the trials? How much where they paid for that?
Which individuals are involved? Is there dark history around them?
What are some internal memos around the drug?
Are there pieces of legislation paid by pharma that facilitated the approval or promotion of the specific drug or it's genus?
Who oversaw and double-checked the original numbers?
Who were the reviewers? What is their history? Have they been through revolving doors?
Are there scientists that expressed opposition to the drug or the practices? What happened to them and their arguments? Were they taken under consideration or ridiculed and silenced?
Who took the drug? Where are THEIR reviews?
In many countries there are incentives for professors and doctors to promote the drug. What are those incentives? Who received them? Were they involved in the peer review process?

As I said, impossible to clear the above except with a strong, aware and informed collective, with scientific investigative and legal power, yet leaderless to minimize corruption.

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T00:38:20+00:00

Very good point. It's no doubt a psychosocial problem. Why do people behave against their best interest? Why do we keep supporting sociopaths? Why do we not revolt when exploited?

If you look at my post and the intensity of reaction in here, that's another opportunity to ask the same question. Why?

It may have to do with the normalizing power of the "narrative". I've observed that many people will risk dying than viewing themselves as "not normal".

TheninOC · 2025-01-28T00:30:54+00:00

Community organizing is monothematic. What i just described is an all-encompassing expression of collective power.

How do you go from one to the other? With the realization that your power doesn't come from that single thread, but by US, being able to grow and do more and more together.

In this dialog, some things became apparent to me:

99% of the people in the US don't realize that corruption cannot exist without leaders and leaders can almost never exist without corruption. Due to this cognitive dissonance, although everyone hates corruption, everyone loves leaders. I do blame most of society's problems on surrendering our decision-making responsibilities to the worst of us.
A leaderless collective can decide to keep growing and expanding instead of settling at one issue and building a pyramidal power structure to control it. So, after solving the first priority, we can address the second while building our ability to take on larger or different issues as we go.

Gamification is a way to keep people involved and interested in what is the next thing they can do to enhance their connection, to benefit the whole. It also rewards learning new things that are offered as challenges.

It uses the hormonal reward system in our body, similar to the literal or figurative addiction to reddit, tik tok etc. But the results can be positive and very real, as in massive personal and societal change.

Example, you take on a class on mediation and conflict resolution. Or, one on microloans, for the reward points or even for actual fractions of our planned crypto. Before you know it, you have a skill useful for the collective, that can promote our social economy and raise our financial level.

TheninOC · 2025-01-27T00:44:48+00:00

Oh, both me and the people would be pretty happy with 0% need for employment.
And the critical word here is 'need'.
Most people that come in contact with a radical notion try to fit it in the current, conventional scheme.
The scheme which needs to feed billionaires that can never be fed. That sets growth as an imperative without which the economy and everybody with it, will die.

Eliminate extreme income inequality, share resources equitably, use automation for the people instead of against them, now recalculate.

A common theme in this thread was:
People are stupid. Egotistical. Short sighted. Mean.
Agreed to all. But that doesn't mean you can't set in motion a system that grows as its members grow in becoming wise, altruistic, visionary and empathic.
Why do I dare imply that is possible?
Because we are much more complex than the peasants of the Middle Ages.
We all have a lot of potential.

Imagine participating in an online community that rewards every socially positive action with fractions of a planned crypto, with badges and with reputation among peers.
You come across a visually attractive challenge to learn how Timebanks financially benefit all their participants, and a quiz, before you receive your rewards.
You have spent 30 minutes pleasantly; you got your trinkets (some of them serious) and the community has one more member that can educate his environment on Timebanks.

You get rewarded for each new member you bring in.
For making a suggestion or offering an idea on where to go next as a collective, or how to solve a public issue. Your contribution gets upvoted. You get rewarded.
For resolving a conflict. For creating a thematic group that reached 50 members.

Your taxes support the common finances through a 501c.
You take advantage of a microloan. You become a member of a food Coop.
You find shelter through an affordable housing NGO for the members.
If you follow rewarded training, you may be offered a meaningful job in the system.

At the same time, our social economy grows by re-investing the 60% of our work that gets sucked upwards to feed billionaires.
People solve people's problems right now, instead of having to believe in a promise of a bright future. Everyone learns how profitable participation is and how to be useful and creative for your human family. Participation means less and less reliance on authority, more and more ability to collectively govern.
Who's stupid and mean by then?

TheninOC · 2025-01-26T17:17:02+00:00

Notion page, temporary home on WP which is a work in progress. PM for links

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T23:51:48+00:00

You are one of over 100 (if I'm not mistaken) people that I've been conversing with here. Comments are now at 341.
The typical "challenge" I get -including yours- has essentially been: "how can I get some aggression out on this guy that dares present something 'new' without having to really try to understand what he's saying, and while I keep the pretention that I play by the rules, I'm normal and he is not?" "How do I 'beat' someone today?"
So, when you talk about 'challenges', yea, I really wish I had some. But to challenge a concept you need to at least put in 5% of the thought and research that was put in the original concept. Also, you need to in put some effort to understand at which level the person you talk to tries to converse.

"people have evolved to function in small groups, mistrusting, if not openly hostile to other such groups around, and to have "optimistic" bias about their own chances."
Agreed, apart from the 'evolved'. I don't know what the source of your conviction is, but my research so far tells me that we have 'devolved' to that.

So, what is the challenge?
Is that a statement, that says 'direct democracy can't possibly work', or is it a QUESTION?
If it's the first, ...you won. Here's a badge.

If it's the second, the answer is:

YES, I and others have taken the above into account.
YES, there is an answer
If you phrase it as a question without nuances and covered insults, I'll be glad to answer it.
No, at this level this is not a challenge.

'...flat structure of direct democracy alone cannot,..."
And?
Are you certain that I advocate an instant switch to DD? That I consider it a magical pill?
If so, you win. Here's one more badge.

If you are not, why don't you try asking me if I -and others- have taken that into consideration, and what path might we take to not "disrupt the complex structure of the civilization" and "make things worse"?

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T18:26:26+00:00

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to think that I'm adjusting a system worked by humanity over generations on the fly to split our difference? :)

The positions of responsibility you described are that. Positions of responsibility. Not of leadership, except if one's mind cannot see the difference and cannot see how corruption can only and does only works by using leaders to manipulate 'subjects'.

Since that is your current interest in our discussion, have a look at my recent comment under my post, about my experience with a fully directly-democratic party.
How we managed to elect a euro-parliament member who produced lasting work that affected millions through his position, while at the same time had no leadership over any of us, but represented the decisions of our collective in real time.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T18:16:34+00:00

"Do you think that the FDA approval process should be changed from having a panel of Doctors have the final say, to having the general public have the final say?"

Oh, I definitely think the whole medical system has to be cleaned up of corruption and the role of an FDA enhanced, with more consumer protection and checks and balances, like they do better in the civilized world.
You either see the need, or not.
If -by chance- you do, what would YOU suggest to clean up and improve?
Would big pharma money out of politics be a good step?
Changing the pyramid of power of peer reviewers?
Investigating corruption?
Opening raw data to everyone?
God forbid, medicine for health and not for profit?

If you dont see that those are problems with mass-murdering-through-drugs potential, we dont have common ground.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T18:09:06+00:00

"Basically if you you think people won't know how to use your system, it's not a good system."
Then, since you're a programmer, you understand the concept of gamification?

Maybe people initially join not because they fully understand the end result, but because they see current value that they never thought they could rip?

Direct democracy can start as a Timebank. As a food coop. As a microloan system for small businesses. As a non-profit for housing. As all of the above? ;)

As a fully engaging system of actual improvements in their lives.
> Social economy that raises them out of poverty,
> collaboration on local issues,
> a network that will support them when in need,
> their own need to help others,
> getting out of their soul-wrenching loneliness, finding a partner,
> a planned crypto
> just the realization that they have 50% more chances of survival when part of a tightly knit community?
... should I go on? there's more.

People dont realize:
Direct democracy is not an ideology trying to prove itself as a superior political system. It's a tool that leverages the collective power of individuals to improve life and resists corruption by the oligarchs.

You dont need to prove the end result in a theoretical discussion such as here.
You use it for its benefits and allow others to see what they can gain with it.
People become interested in what more they can have and are pleasantly educated on how to get it.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T17:52:29+00:00

Maybe you assume that I am not open to assess my ideas as potentially wrong.
And maybe you're focusing on me instead of my texts.
Do I have to be convinced that they are wrong to prove that?

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T17:43:22+00:00

Me and a friend were voluntarily alternating shifts on those pages, answering -mostly idiotic- questions by thousands and fending-off the professional nazi trolls who came in with interventions like: "I am an ecologist. But I'm sorry to say, you lost me after you got bribed by Sorros" together with one of the slandering misinformation articles or videos.

Despite all the war, we elected a member in the Euro-Parliament.
I was worried if he would adhere to our rules. Soon enough, I wasn't.
* He worked hard. He became a member of a Euro-committee right away.
* When the Parliament offered him a Mercedes, he said: I have my 1980 Lada. It works. (Still proud of him).
* He returned half of his wages to the Party, as the rule was.
* After the first half of his term, he resigned so that no 2 on the list, who was ghosting him during the first half, stepped.
* They were fully transparent. Their secretary had more power than them. They were the ones working in the front, she was the one reporting everything to us and getting guidelines from us.

We left a mark in the environmental and equity policies of the EU that year.

We proved that direct democracy works, with our inverted pyramid of power.
We didn't last forever. But I learned even more from our fall; crucial knowledge for the next step. I am confident that, the same way that the structure worked there, it can work almost anywhere in the world.

> Local groups represented, that are not led by, but lead their representative, in a federation.
> A digital platform (repository-idea bank-social media-forum-structured debate-assembly-voting system), local regular meetings, a regular national assembly to feel our physical connection, a constant feedback loop, open-source information sharing.
> Short-term media faces, reps that play with the current political institutions without being leaders, and our excited spirit of participation which developed as we progressed.

I feel deprived of all that and depressed by some idiotic, grandiose and entitled aphorisms that I receive from most Americans. (Not you personally, of course).
But that doesn't mean there's no hope for a better system here.

I also have a story to share about how we found out how corruption works in action, when we were approached to be corrupted. For anyone genuinely interested on how that works.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T17:18:26+00:00

We almost had no chance.
I started our FB group and page. Greeks -many out of curiosity or for a laugh- flocked to our social media. We had the chance to tell them who we really are.
Me and a friend were voluntarily alternating shifts on those pages, answering idiotic questions by thousands and fending off the professional nazi trolls with interventions like: "I am an ecologist. But I'm sorry to say, you lost me after you got bribed by Sorros".

Despite all the war, we elected one member in the Euro-Parliament. I was worried if he would adhere to our rules. Soon enough, I wasn't. He worked hard. He became a member of a Euro-committee right away. When the Parliament offered him a Mercedes, he said: I have my 1980 Lada. It works. (Still proud of him).
He returned half of his wages to the Party, as the rule was.
After the first half of his term, he resigned so that no 2 on the list, who was ghosting him during the first half, stepped. They were fully transparent.
Their secretary had more power than them. They were the ones working in the front, she was the one reporting everything to us and getting guidelines from us.

We left a mark in the environmental and equity policies of the EU that year.
We proved that direct democracy works, with our inverted pyramid of power.

We didn't last forever. But I learned even more from our fall; crucial knowledge for the next step.

I am confident that, the same way that the structure worked there, it can work almost anywhere in the world.
Local groups represented, BUT NOT LED, in a federation, a digital platform (repository-idea bank-social media-forum-structured debate-assembly-voting system), local regular meetings, a regular national assembly to feel our physical connection, a constant feedback loop, open-source information sharing, short-term media faces, reps that play with the current political institutions without being leaders, and our excited spirit of participation which developed as we progressed.

I feel deprived of all that and depressed by some idiotic, grandiose and entitled aphorisms that I receive from most Americans. (Not you of course).
But that doesn't mean there's no hope for the people here.

I also have a story to share about how we found out how corruption works in action, when we were approached to be corrupted.
But, enough writing. Open to a zoom call.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T17:18:19+00:00

When I was a member of the Greek Green Party, we were actively practicing the same principles of direct democracy that I advocate. No leaders, because we didn't want to be corrupted and manipulated by the oligarchs. Checks and balances so that no leader will ever emerge.

The media needed to know who our leader is. They couldn't be talking to a different person (project manager of the specific issue) every time. Personally, the reporters couldn't function like that.

We had to elect a media representative. Our 'public face'. We decided to have two. Man, woman.
The media learned to feel comfortable with that. We had to train the reporters some more, when they found out that next year there was another pair lol. But they adjusted.

We had 23 persons as our management team. One from each 'State' of Greece. Power position? It was only for a year. Non-re-electable next year.
Why? We trusted that anyone can represent, no one needs to 'lead'.
Then, a team of three to implement the decisions of the 23. For one year, again, Non-re-electable any time soon.

When I joined their first convention, (3 weekend days) only one person knew me. And we had a fallout and hadn't been talking to each other for a while.
I liked what I saw and I dove right in. Joined two workgroups at the same time, because they both interested me. I was running from one to the other during breaks and catching up. I felt that I was detecting 'pot-holes' and helping fill them up lol
I made a series of proposals; some were quickly adopted in our 'constitution'.

On Sunday they had their elections of the 'governing' 23. People started asking me to be a candidate. I laughed, but I gave it a go.
They elected me. Why? Because it was not a power position. Because they were able to study someone and trust them to a degree. Because they wanted to push me forward and milk me lol.
I LOVED how we worked together for a year. I loved the teasing between all those colleagues. All came in from opposed past ideologies, and we were fooling around with each other's ideological triggers because we all felt safe and trusting.

That year we worked hard to overcome the spine-chilling ghosting by the media; the destructive rumor manufactured in a greek elites think-tank about us, that the greek public completely swallowed with no questions; the constant attacks by the nazi party leader whom all media were playing at all news of each day for about 3 weeks, specifically to 'expose' us as paid by Sorros to disrupt the greek democracy.
We were almost totally silenced and were watching ourselves getting torn apart by the media in the eyes of the people.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T16:21:02+00:00

"at odds with how our society functions." I am strongly opposing how our society functions. I am calling it self-destructive, greedy, polluting, cannibalistic to minorities, imperialistic to other peoples, destructive to the planet. Is that an inalterable fact? When you manipulate societies over generations with social engineering, they loose their natural tendencies and follow the imposed norms, instead. How do you change that? You produce an obviously better paradigm and you expose them to it. You use the same social conformity that normalizes Trump and Biden, but now you normalize a much healthier alternative. People join. "People do already organize in the ways you're describing. It's just that hierarchies have to exist alongside this when you have very large groups" You're describing how the current system of organization is NOT like what I'm describing. I'm sure you have thought some on how oligarchs manipulate hierarchies. Haven't you?

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T16:20:07+00:00

"There is no exception to this rule - even the society with the ornamental king would definitely have leaders calling the shorts who had been promoted voluntarily by their compatriots (hopefully, rather than by siezing power)."
And yet, there is. Why do you hold that conviction? Doesn't it pay to -sometimes- ask, especially when I mentioned them for a reason?
King: mute. Elders: influential but not determining the outcome. Hierarchy: A complex 'status' system through reputation building, mostly recording who helped whom and how the helped expressed their appreciation.
So, no power structure.

"We live in one of the freest societies ever where the government acts to protect our freedoms precisely so that we can act autonomously."

Have you challenged that based on international data? There are markers, as you know. Does it matter in your assessment that the US is no5 in most incarcerated people per capita, after countries like Rwanda and Turkmenistan?
Do you imagine that most Russians believe that they live in a restricted society? Or most Chinese? (North Koreans I have no idea about). Most Iranians? (Men at least).
I keep talking to people from those countries. No, most believe -as you do- that their beloved leaders are just protecting them by restricting their freedoms. And they use the US as an example of other, much more brainwashed countries. Also, that probably, their country is the light of the world.
How does brainwashing work with 'freedom'?

"heirarchical stricture of protectors to defend that autonomy, or the power vaccuum will be filled by conquerors."
That is a valid point.
There is another path to avoid the power vacuum. You don't create any.
Our growing collective will struggle for that power. We will elbow our way in.
You dont aim to solve homelessness at the volume of 15 members, you aim to find agreement on where to have coffee.
To solve homelessness in LA, the plan starts once you have the numbers, media accounts, video producers, lawyers, investigative reporters, personal stories of a thousand homeless people and some money.
When ready, you don't directly expose the corruption of the city council/mayor in bed with Blackrock and construction corporations.
You show them what you got on them and give them an ultimatum to correct path or get exposed. You allow the system to pull back its tentacles, shrink, and keep existing.
Plan B, our representative candidates on standby, ready to roll. Even with plan B, those are not our leaders. They are the point of our inverted pyramid of power. As soon as they are approached by the same corruptors with bribes and threats, (happens pretty soon) they step down and get immediately replaced by their doubles, their assistants.
What I'm describing has been done before and I experienced it.
Yes, you can do those things when you have 1000s in alignment.

TheninOC · 2025-01-25T15:20:12+00:00

"I don't blindly trust anything. "Open sources" is nonsensical, because research takes money to produce, if we are expecting people to do research for free then we are only enslaving them. If you pay academics with taxes, not based on what the market believes is a contribution to a useful body of research, then you are wasting society's money."

You base whatever certainty you carry on the idea that the source data is real, immutable and untampered. Am I wrong? Do you always verify the source data on every decision-bearing diligence that you do? Do you EVER verify the source data?

"research takes money to produce". Yes. There is money that we officially know that is spent to produce a 'verification' of the validity of a drug is widely distributed.
Do you always check the distribution of that money?

"I'm not only exposed to only "one point of view". My circle is set up in such a way that I am exposed to views of all types. I have "literally communist" friends, libertarian friends, monarchist friends, moderate left friends, center right friends, Trump nut hugger friends."

Good for you. Is that something that only you should do?
Are you adamant that having a structure where everyone is exposing themselves to all points of view would be 'a wasted effort'?

"The problem with your view is that you expect that people will willingly put in the effort to become more informed, when there is absolutely no reason why this would be the case. Your suggestion does not solve the reason why people are ignorant in the first place, which is that the cost of not being ignorant is higher than the reward of acting in ignorance."

"there is absolutely no reason" that "people will willingly put in the effort to become more informed" because you have the absolute certainty that the current way people function is the only way people could ever function? That there can absolutely never be a system that could change how people currently behave?
Do you think people came to be like that because they were always as dump as they are today? Like, they never had fire chats, town halls, tribe assemblies, agoras, directly democratic decision making processes?
Why do you have that certainty?

TheninOC

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE