The label 'love' itself is perhaps too misused, — universeness

Yes. I'm an ogre about words, precision of meaning. Some words are stretched over so broad a spectrum of meaning that they lose definition altogether. Love and hate are foremost among those overtaxed words. I enjoy walnuts and dislike garlic; I am uncomfortable in wet clothing and feel good in a warm bed; I prefer arts to sports; I favour social justice over social Darwinism; I fear and distrust right-wing zealots and support intelligent, progressive agendas. But my love is reserved for immediate family and at this stage of life, I hate nothing and nobody.

I use the words like everyone else, carelessly (I love mac & cheese, hate winter mornings) in daily conversation, but I'm more mindful of specific meaning in forum discussions. I think part of the reason for that reserve in vocabulary is the emotionalism and histrionics that so pervade our current culture. I believe it distorts people's perspective and overwhelms reason.

No, group forming of similarly minded individuals will happen, and is encouraged on an issue to issue basis, for the 4 years the elected 650 independents govern. — universeness

Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis?

The second chamber would have as many members as required to allow one male and one female rep from each group. — universeness

Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need.

Can then corporations have their "stakeholder" positions in the second chamber? What about foreign countries? Aren't they too stakeholders???

The military and the police would be represented at all levels of government, but the military and police would not be under the full control of the first chamber. — universeness

No really, don't you see the threat here?

You are putting part of the government (armed forces, police) that is under the executive branch in control or having partly control also of the legislative branch. This goes totally against the separations of powers principal. Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. There's really a difference of the generals asking politicians for money and generals deciding themselves on the money.

The military really should be out of politics. They are there to serve the people and follow the laws passed by the elected representatives. It's enough that politicians select those who are going to be high ranking officers. That already introduces enough politics into an organization that shouldn't be interested in day-to-day politics, but focus on security issues and to create a deterrence that the country won't be attacked.

Yeah, there are so many over-burdened words in human language. Love and hate are definitely two of them.

Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis? — ssu

I cant explain 'issue to issue basis,' better than the words used to express it. Surely I don't have to exemplify to you what an 'issue' is in politics.
The views that an individual currently holds, can be impacted almost instantly, by placing you in a 'team/tribe/party,' think mode. Group forming of independents, on an issue by issue basis, is not impacted to anywhere near the same degree, as people who are faced with a very well established, long history of tradition and hierarchy, such as that established by political parties and internal party politics.
In party politics in the UK parliament, a 'free vote' has to be actually 'allowed,' and is declared by the party you are a member of, to allow you to vote, based on your own views or based on the majority view of your constituents. If a 'free vote' is not declared on an issue or proposed policy then an MP will mostly vote the way their party hierarchy dictates. That must end. Political representatives must vote on an issue by issue basis, based on negotiation between the representatives own views, the views on the issue they have garnished from their constituents, and the results of the debates with their fellow MP's regarding the issue. I may have common ground with you on one issue and none on another. No party loyalty should be able to veto my common ground with you and cause me to vote against an issue merely because my political party hierarchy demands that I comply. That is not democratic imo.
The people often benefit most from coalition governments, rather than from left or right dominated party based governance, as they have no choice but to negotiate on an issue by issue basis, as the have no majority to force legislation through. In the case of a ruling majority government, one group tends to just spend most of the 4 years they have, reversing the worse of the damage they think was done by the other side, during their administration and because nothing much actually changes for the better in the day to day lives of the people who voted them in. Due to that frustration, they vote that lot out again, move to the other extreme, or some ineffectual middle ground, and the situation repeats. There are many progressive political movements, growing today, who are calling for serious and permanent changes to how we do politics.

Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need. — ssu

The people will decide. I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses.

What about foreign countries? Aren't they too stakeholders??? — ssu

No.

You are putting part of the government (armed forces, police) that is under the executive branch in control or having partly control also of the legislative branch. This goes totally against the separations of powers principal. Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. There's really a difference of the generals asking politicians for money and generals deciding themselves on the money. — ssu

The army, navy, air force and police would each have two reps in the second chamber. This is because those fields all have workers, who are the same as any other worker. I have already indicated that the first chamber would not have full control over the assets of the armed forces or the police. The details involved are complex.

Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. — ssu

This is completely wrong, and money would be removed from our lives completely. Perhaps you should read up a little on how a resource based economy, which employs automation as its backbone, would work. You need to stop thinking of the military and the police as 'them,' when we need to ensure in the future I am attempting to describe to you, that they are an integral part of 'us.'

I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses. — universeness

That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll:

Now here's the problem: your system is extremely convoluted and very hierarchial. It's really about the "etc, etc." and just who decides who are the "etc, etc." in the first place.

First, you have members of second house of parliament based on like sexual minorities (how then on sexual majority, no?), then you have members based on where they work (which give a plethora of industries and services, if for example construction industry has it's own representative), then representatives (2) on companies. Then based on age. Then based on education. How about religion? (And missing is that people live in different places in the UK.)

Yet here's the basic problem: people actually are made up of nearly every category: they are either young or old, they are either in a sexual minority or not, they are religious (which can vary) or atheist, they work in some or another work. AND SELDOM none of these issues matter on what they think about policy.

How about let's say assistance to Ukraine that the country is given after the Russian invasion? Is that a sexual minority/majority issue? Is it an age issue, really?

The apparent reason to make such a convoluted system to my view is to make the whole system unworkable. When it's unworkable, someone other has to do the actual ruling and day-to-day management of the system. It's like Ghaddafi's Libya.

The system has to be understandable and simple for the ordinary person to understand it. Why cannot it be so that people elect representatives that promise to advance issues that the people want to be advanced?

That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll: — ssu

I think you are rather confused. In a socialist democracy, dictatorship is impossible. I would be one voice only and I would have only my vote and ability to persuade others via democratic debate. Cooperatives and public companies are not private businesses.

Now here's the problem: your system is extremely convoluted and very hierarchial. It's really about the "etc, etc." and just who decides who are the "etc, etc." in the first place. — ssu

Only in your, imo, confused thinking.

First, you have members of second house of parliament based on like sexual minorities (how then on sexual majority, no?), then you have members based on where they work (which give a plethora of industries and services, if for example construction industry has it's own representative), then representatives (2) on companies. Then based on age. Then based on education. How about religion? (And missing is that people live in different places in the UK.) — ssu

It's very simple. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. These form two broad categories. Workers and Social groupings. The military and the police are workers for example. Binary and non-binary sexuality are two social groupings. Exactly who fits in to which worker or social group, is a matter of decision via democratic debate and such groupings would be open to change, as the term 'social' and what counts as 'worker' is open to change. For example, I consider all home carers as workers regardless of their relationship with those they care for.

Yet here's the basic problem: people actually are made up of nearly every category: they are either young or old, they are either in a sexual minority or not, they are religious (which can vary) or atheist, they work in some or another work. AND SELDOM none of these issues matter on what they think about policy. — ssu

That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense.

How about let's say assistance to Ukraine that the country is given after the Russian invasion? Is that a sexual minority/majority issue? Is it an age issue, really? — ssu

:lol: Are you serious? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? My answer would be yes!, of course it does, but that would also be a rather 'no shit Sherlock,' statement for any rational thinker, yes?

The apparent reason to make such a convoluted system to my view is to make the whole system unworkable. When it's unworkable, someone other has to do the actual ruling and day-to-day management of the system. It's like Ghaddafi's Libya. — ssu

I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote.

The system has to be understandable and simple for the ordinary person to understand it. Why cannot it be so that people elect representatives that promise to advance issues that the people want to be advanced? — ssu

It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating and that is exactly what party politicians often promise to do but rarely do, once they are elected, due to either being opportunists or due to being burdened and controlled by party political hierarchy.

I think you are rather confused. In a socialist democracy, dictatorship is impossible. — universeness

Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships.

It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating — universeness

Isn't that exactly what existing democracies are about?

Let's have an theoretical example:

If there's a very popular movement in the UK that wants to save the British cultural heritage of silly walking, wants silly walking be encouraged, advanced and assisted by the government and have the objective of a ministry of silly walks to be formed, then an elected administration will form a ministry of silly walks. If it doesn't, this movement will vote for the party that will do this. Or form their own party to do this. And because it is so popular among the electorate who feel silly walking is crucial for British culture, existential for Britishness to survive and far more important than any other issue, why wouldn't it happen?

This is something very crucial to British culture!


You don't need have to entrech it in the system as a "stakeholder" as the man and woman representing the advancement of silly walks. Because once they have that stakeholder stance in the parliament, dislodging them is difficult, when they have that stance. What if people later find silly walking not so important to the existence of the UK? The two representatives surely will find it important: after all, it's their jobs on the line. For example Lebanon had (I think has even now) a very convoluted system where representatives of the various ethnic and religious groups have permanent positions on the government. It was intended for the benefit of the multicultural country, but it's made Lebanese politics even worse.

. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. — universeness

Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it?

That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense. — universeness

Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others?

? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? — universeness

No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on.

I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote. — universeness

What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier because the factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties.

That's your personal view. — ssu

He never claimed otherwise. It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system. I have suggested ways it might be improved. I have found that carping at them doesn't improve ideas.

. It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system. — Vera Mont

Yes, it's a proposal.

But just how rigid the stakeholders are is in my view a relevant question. The actual upper house of the UK Parliament, the house of lords, is a perfect example of how rigid these systems are in reality. If in the 11th Century the system fitted the needs of the times, the role of the UK aristocracy has dramatically changed when we come to this Century. And even if the hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, there still are exceptions. So there's an example of how rigid these systems are.

I have found that carping at them doesn't improve ideas. — Vera Mont

Especially in a Philosophy Forum where the people are anonymous, I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas.

I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu

Oh, certainly... as long as the the questions are based on an accurate reading of the proposal and not on assumptions brought over form a different system of thought, a different economic organization, a different set of political criteria.

Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships. — ssu

I don't understand why you try to labour this, when you and I and the vast majority of folks with an average political education, know well enough, the truth of such. Any historical revolution of a mass of stakeholders at a the level of 'nation' has began with 'true socialism,' as it's main driver. Animal Farm by Orwell, and a vast collection of other literature and documentation, explains in a crystal clear fashion, what often goes very wrong after that and why. The fact that the pigs who have in the past formed a dictatorship, out of what started as socialist revolutions against the actions of monarchistic/aristocratic rule in such nations as China, Russia, France etc, does not mean that continuing to describe them as socialist and democratic, is in any way valid. It is utter nonsense to suggest that it is valid, and you know that. So your reasons for doing so, will hopefully be plain for any intelligent reader to see, and only serve to demonstrate your obtuse intentions.

If there's a very popular movement in the UK that wants to save the British cultural heritage of silly walking, wants silly walking be encouraged, advanced and assisted by the government and have the objective of a ministry of silly walks to be formed, then an elected administration will form a ministry of silly walks. If it doesn't, this movement will vote for the party that will do this. Or form their own party to do this. And because it is so popular among the electorate who feel silly walking is crucial for British culture, existential for Britishness to survive and far more important than any other issue, why wouldn't it happen?
This is something very crucial to British culture! — ssu

I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. If your best attempt at combatting my position is to invoke a monty python sketch then imo, you defeat yourself, as your example, in the context you try to employ it, is too stupid to be taken seriously, and will do no more, imo than cause mockery, but not against my proposals, but at you.
You have some strange impressions about UK people. Its better to judge the political priorities of an individual as you encounter them rather that make bizarre blanket comparisons as your 'silly' example above try's to do. Does this guy speak for all Finn's?

For example Lebanon had (I think has even now) a very convoluted system where representatives of the various ethnic and religious groups have permanent positions on the government. It was intended for the benefit of the multicultural country, but it's made Lebanese politics even worse. — ssu

Again, you describe another example of a situation that I would be totally against. Where did I advocate that the second chamber I described to you would have permanent members? and that such permanent members would come from 'various ethnic and religious groups?'

Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it? — ssu

Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others? — ssu

How many times do I have to restate to you, that the people will decide such, via democratic discussion/debate and voting for representatives that best represent their personal conclusions.

No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on. — ssu

You need to ask the LGBTQ+ community what offends them most, not me. I would personally include that social group, with two representatives in the second chamber yes, if you would not then, you can use your vote against such a proposal. Is your fog regarding how true democratic socialism works, beginning to clear up a little?

What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier becausethe factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties. — ssu

This paragraph is rambling and full of ridiculous projections and claims that either I have not suggested (emboldened) in any way, or are just your badly formed and somewhat ridiculous predictions (italicised)

It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system — Vera Mont

Oh, certainly... as long as the the questions are based on an accurate reading of the proposal and not on assumptions brought over form a different system of thought, a different economic organization, a different set of political criteria. — Vera Mont

Absolutely!

The actual upper house of the UK Parliament, the house of lords, is a perfect example of how rigid these systems are in reality. If in the 11th Century the system fitted the needs of the times, the role of the UK aristocracy has dramatically changed when we come to this Century. And even if the hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, there still are exceptions. So there's an example of how rigid these systems are. — ssu

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works?

I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu

I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. My target is of course, any readers of our exchange, which will not be many here on TPF, but even 1, is still worth my effort.
If you can defeat my positions, on a point by point basis using very compelling, well structured, well reasoned, counter points, backed up by powerful historical exemplars, that support your position. Then you will help ensure that my political visions, never even get attempted, anywhere on this planet.
You can start to do that, anytime you like?

I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. — universeness

You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks.

But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad.

I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. — universeness

That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter.

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works? — universeness

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters.

You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another.

You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks. — ssu

I have answered you questions fully. My answers just don't fit your agenda, that's all. I am unconcerned about that. Brexit might have been a slightly better (but not much,) alley for you to wander down but party politics does not look good in any way, under the light of Brexit. Especially, when you have such opportunists at the centre of that issue, such as Boris Johnston, whose political stance was, is and always will be, for sale to the highest bidding plutocrat or organised group of plutocrats. Then we had even more seriously vile individuals, such as Dominic Cummings, who created a whole campaign of lies regarding the benefits of Brexit. We in Scotland voted 62% against Brexit, as creeps like Cummings are better understood here, imo.

But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad. — ssu

It's nice that you are a Monty python fan, but you need to end your confusion about the connection between UK people, political comedy and the realpolitik of life in the UK under it's current abominable party political system.

That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter. — ssu

If you are smart enough to understand that, then perhaps with a little more depth of thought, you will begin to see the benefits to the vast majority of the human species on this planet that the abandonment of party politics would have. No more presidents or prime ministers, they are just surplus to human requirements, imo.

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your account important areas, once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. For starters.
You have to design a system for the existing people ...that you don't like. They'll participate, I guarantee you. — ssu

The basics of the structure of second chamber I am trying to describe to you, would not be an 'upper house,' in any sense of the term. It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. In the system I advocate for, there would be no titled people and no monarchy. These are embarrassing, ridiculous, outdated notions. Would you bow to some dickhead who had the title King? :rofl:
I would not. I would also offer zero respect to any title such as lord, duke, duchess, dame, count, sir knight or any other such utter crap. I would legislate all such titles to the oblivion they should have been sent to after the English civil war. There would therefore be no such creatures as aristos, in the second chamber. I am not proposing anything that looks like or functions like the current UK house of lords, so stop conflating my proposed second chamber with that toilet/useless house of a privileged few.
You are correct that the current nefarious rich and privileged groups, will not approve of my suggested changes to the current party political system, but with all due respect ssu, the words I underlined, in the above quote from you, seem to be another 'no shit Sherlock,' moment for you.

You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another. — ssu

That's pretty much what a constitution is. The constitution must include an amending formula to accommodate changes that are deemed necessary later on. Once you have a constitution in place, even if it contains some unavoidable compromises, governance can proceed. (I suspect there would be minimal support in the constitutional congress for a ministry of silly walks. But I suppose it's worth proposing, to replace the Paymaster general's office.)
However the constitutional congress is assembled (referendum, I suppose, but have no ready proposal for the questions - well - one: should animal rights be included? ), it could do worse than take its lead from the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I would also offer zero respect to any title such as lord, duke, duchess, dame, count, sir knight or any other such utter crap. — universeness

Could you please rename, without rescinding, the honours bestowed on persons who contributed to culture and human welfare?

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. — ssu

Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented?

Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love. — universeness

I love your question. I love it when I have to question what I think and feel.

I don't propose to answer for Athena, but for myself: because "love" is such a loaded, booby-trapped word. It evokes sentimentality, hypocrisy, Christian doctrine and a whole a passel of emotional stuff with which I don't want to be lumbered. I have compassion for people I find quite unpalatable and for animals I would never want to encounter in the wild. That empathy, or sense of rightness or whatever it is is quite distinct from my personal relationships in which affection plays a major part. Also, I consider some constraints on my freedom, some obligations of time an effort, as a civic duty: the price of living in a society that affords me protection and support. — Vera Mont

That is a pretty good explanation of why I want to avoid "love".

There came a time in my life when I realized respect is much more important than love. Abusive people can "love" those they abuse and this would not happen if they respected the other person and didn't feel justified in being abusive. I got this from a couple of guys I lived with and their military understanding of respect. Somehow I had lost awareness of the reasoning for respect that I grew up with. Perhaps it was all those dopey songs about love and hormones that led to intimate behaviors and our Puritan thinking about morality. Like it isn't sinful if it is love, right? So we take the abuse and take the abuse because we "love" the abuser. :vomit: Only humans will stay in bad relationships because of the concept of love.

Compassion is also important. The golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. I would not have taken in the man I took in last winter, except, I thought that could be me and how awful would be if I could not figure out how to get housing or get assistance and no one helped me. By the way, this man had a major stroke and is now in long-term care, unable to communicate or get out of bed.

Back to love. Love is a feeling and feelings change and change. We should not base our decisions on our emotions.

There came a time in my life when I realized respect is much more important than love. — Athena

In one of Kurt Vonnegot's novels, that I don't have time to look up right now, he says "What the world needs in not more love but more common decency."

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works?
— universeness
My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters. — ssu

Oh my goodness, I think it is high time for the US to clean up its Congress and get real about aging. I do not see how our present system can not be corrupt! Our presidency is limited to two terms and certainly, that should apply to all of those sitting in elected offices. This should also go with stronger rules for serving the people rather than serving one's self. Kick out the Industrial and foreign lobbyist and their gifts. We should not be ruled by those who can be bought.

In one of Kurt Vonnegot's novels, that I don't have time to look up right now, he says "What the world needs in not more love but more common decency." — Vera Mont

Would that include all media decision-making?

I do not think our freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything we want because it would include immoral speech. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. If the effect is bad, it is immoral. A lack of morals leads to anarchy and that is not tolerable so it becomes a police state.

The only way to have a moral society that is not does have authority over the people, is education for good moral judgment. That is education that transmits a culture where liberty is not harmful. The education teaches, that we defend our liberty by obeying the laws and if we think the law is wrong, it is our duty to take the action to change the law.

do not think our freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything we want because it would include immoral speech. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. If the effect is bad, it is immoral. A lack of morals leads to anarchy and that is not tolerable so it becomes a police state. — Athena

That's a longish stride from moral and immoral speech. I was there when it was considered highly immoral to mention homosexuality and perfectly acceptable to feature blackface in a performance. Morality is as suspect in my book as brotherly love. But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making.

It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. — universeness

And my questions are:

1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy.

Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented? — Vera Mont

I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. But they themselves likely will see themselves as important and worthy of the "stakeholder" position.

1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy. — ssu

1) By plebiscite would be my choice.
2) Amendment to the constitution; at least 2/3 majority.
3) I doubt regions and genders will become obsolete anytime soon. I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten.

I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. — ssu

How would any one or two representatives have more or less say in a democratic decision? Why would any particular stakeholder group be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about.

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves.

Political parties should have to be frightened that they really lose it, all of it, not wait just for some time (perhaps in a lucrative think-tank job or working for the private sector) until the electorate is so disenchanted with the other party that they vote for them again.

Now in the both American parties have this rigid career path of being just loyal and waiting for one's turn. And in the end, you have things like this:



You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade:



Such vitalism, such energy to confront and solve the present and future problems of the socialist experiment in the picture above.

I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten. — Vera Mont

In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, hence the proposal goes against the Montesquieu's separation of powers. From their role of being the armed forces of the country they have already enough say in government's actions, they don't need to have a direct say on legislation in the process of making laws.

Why would any particular stakeholder be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont

The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. You simply cannot ask the voter to invent themselves a list of what are "important stakeholders". Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say.

In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, — ssu

There is no 'of course' about that. Is there an executive branch? Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. Since the proposal universeness tabled eliminated nation-states to begin with

We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone.
2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party.
3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness

So I don't even know what this military stakeholder is, unless it's a global peacekeeping force, like police, to prevent regional warring. If it's that, it would come under the justice department, as might police forces also. I'm not sure the arrangements and chains of command have been fully worked out.
As far as I can see, the inter-regional legal body should be represented in the second house, to make sure any new legislation doesn't conflict with standing agreements. The individual troops and police personnel would, of course, still have their votes, one to each rookie, one to each general.

The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. — ssu

You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.
Nobody "rules"!!! No group is more important or less important or has more say or less say. Is that really so hard to understand?

If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. — ssu

That's the definition of democracy, yes. In the very unlikely event that the representatives are deadlocked and the second house can't come up with a viable adjustment on a particular issue, then, yes, the next step would be direct democracy.

Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say. — ssu

Not necessarily just the workers - of whom there are not so many as to require a trade union; since most of the labour is carried out by robots, the human workforce consists of supervisors, engineers, designers, planners, programmers, troubleshooters. However, the communications industry, or energy production or healthcare may have particular needs and problems of which the average elected representative is unaware. If those sectors are represented in the second house, they can suggest changes to a proposed legislation which involves their area of expertise.

If you stop thinking in terms of the cruddy old world order, you might more positively contribute to a fresh new vision.

Is there an executive branch? — Vera Mont

Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him.

Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. — Vera Mont

The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches.

As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view.

Could you please rename, without rescinding, the honours bestowed on persons who contributed to culture and human welfare? — Vera Mont

Yes, KBE, OBE, CBE etc, to be replaced with the NCA (National Citizenry Award). ICA(same but international), GCA (Global citizenry award) and perhaps even the GOD. Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.' :chin: ) I just so want to have a GOD award, perhaps even as a way to compete/combat the theist notion of GOD, by having many humans who can correctly state that they have also gained an award with the same name. :lol:

I will respond to the other posts by yourself, @ssu and @Athena tomorrow.

Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.' — universeness

I'm happy with that one. Maybe for solving some problem related to climate change or mitigating its effects - a big service to all the world, that a half-decent god would have performed but failed to.

The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches. — ssu

I'm well aware of what the present American system is - in theory. If you wish to discuss that, fine, but I wasn't. I was responding to criticisms of univerness' proposal, which is not the current norm.

As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view. — ssu

Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY?

Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. — Vera Mont

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.

When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.

There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general.

Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY? — Vera Mont

If the political leadership wants to start a truly idiotic war, then I guess they have to go through a lot of generals until they find the yes-man they want. Again typical what has happened in history.

And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: absolutely no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. In the end (when the US had lost support of all of the countries around Afghanistan), the US was airlifting everything from Romania to Afghanistan! No other country can fight an insurgency in a country of the size of Afghanistan and airlift everything there.

it could do worse than take its lead from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. — Vera Mont

The UN is such an important international step towards global unity but it needs a complete overhaul. The fact it exists at all, demonstrates the wish humans have to elevate the priority of cooperation, way way above the priority of competition, imo.

Like it isn't sinful if it is love, right? — Athena

I think humans need to utterly reject that stupid term from theism. Sin does not exist!!!!!!!
If a person does not accept the existence of god(s) then it is not possible to go against it morally.
If humans break any aspect of secular moral code or human law then they have broken our laws or went against our moral codes, not non-existent gods. Godless humans cannot sin!
In my exchange with @Vera Mont regarding the love label, it becomes clear that it's an over-burdened label. I think you have acted often, in support of the well-being of strangers and that shows that you have a great capacity for compassion towards your fellow human beings. You should be awarded the NCA (if it existed,) in my opinion.