Explanation of Terms

"Each  man  individual shall have the right to:"

Having seen the way Taliban treat women, I decided to go back to the original wording of my constitution as it was in '81 or '82 when I first constructed it. Although the following is certainly valid at some level, I no longer think that I should "plan" for it. Nature will take its course and everything should be copasetic (if that's how you spell it ;o).
        I leave my "error" intact lest anyone think I am infallible ;o)

"Each  individual  man shall have the right to:"

M   
eans men, not women. That is, only men have the right to vote. [ In fact, women will vote, but in a separate election having no binding effect on the judgement of men.]

A small clarification:

I've gotten some flack on this point that women will be stripped of the right to vote. In no way should it be construed that the judgement of women should or even could be totally excluded from determining the course of civilization. Their judgement simply cannot overrule that of men.

To do so would be fatal.

In fact, women always presently defer to male judgement in emergency situations even though they could overrule them.

It is, however, their kindly judgement which will, in the next century, reap a horrible consequence. As many as 20 billion people are going to die of starvation because of just this one point.

My judgement on this is therefore irrevocable. - Ebtx 2/98

A revision has been added in the next section - Ebtx 3/01

My judgement is revoked - Ebtx 11/01 ... ;o)

Too bad it doesn't matter in any real sense :o(




The reason for this is ....
Men cast what may be called a force vote. [ Men barred from having a say (vote) in their affairs tend to 'force' the issue by means of violent action.]
Women cast what is termed a permit vote. [ Women vote if men allow it. If not allowed they have no physical recourse. They cannot engage men in open warfare. ]

The rule allowing only men to vote simply reflects reality. If women wish to force men to allow them to vote they must enlist the aid of other men who are willing to battle on their behalf.
[ A prospect too unlikely to warrant further consideration ]
Women do influence the course of events in the long run and their steady judgemental pressure will eventually cause men to follow a path more accomodating to their wishes.

It is the purpose of man to make life physically possible
and the purpose of women to make life worth living. (see Index - "Nature of Man")
Because of this specialization, the psychology of women is fundamentally unable to sustain life. That is, if all men disappeared, 1/2 of the women would have to become more 'masculine' in order to maintain the existence of all. Conversely, if all women disappeared, 1/2 of men would have to become effeminate to make life bearable.

Since government is about the maintenance of physical life it follows that the judgement of men should not be encumbered by the less than adequate judgement of women in this regard.

"Cast one personal vote"

Since the purpose of voting is to distill the best judgement out of a large population, each voter must be given only one equal initial vote. To do otherwise would be to employ judgement before its having been distilled. That is, one cannot say this or that individuals' vote should count for more unless a judgement has already been rendered (by whom?). So, any voting process is logically constrained to begin with the "one man, one vote" principle.

"Receive votes from others"

The foregoing reasoning applies here also. Each man must, in principle, have an equal right to obtain office by acquiring the necessary votes.

"Recast votes received"

The votes acquired by a candidate for office represent the political power conferred upon him by his electors. He may then cast them all for another candidate thereby conferring an ever greater power up through the hierarchy of government.

"Recall those votes and cast them for another"

If a voters' judgement or evaluation of his representative changes, his vote(s) should follow that judgement.

"Votes shall be publicly given to one personal acquaintance"

This rule preserves a well defined chain of command as well as assuring that voting proceeds without unfair advantage given to well known candidates.

If you can give the votes you've obtained to more than one individual the chain of command which we require for functional, responsive government, would be compromised. You would not be able to predict the path your vote(s) would take as they make their way to the highest representative, i.e. anyone who receives your vote could give to candidate A, B, C, etc. when you want it to pass through B's hands only. Also, most importantly, there are no secret ballots in this system. Anyone may know whom you voted for because it must be a matter of public record. In this way, the system can be monitored by anyone anytime for any reason.

That one person who receives your vote(s) must be a 'personal acquaintance'. This insures that your best judgement is used, i.e. judgement from first hand knowledge.
Also, if anyone may vote for anyone else without restriction the most prominent people in the culture will obtain rule regardless of their lack of good judgement. The election system would degenerate into a TV/Billboard/Posteronthelawn popularity contest with uneducated actors, sports figures and the like deciding the fate of civilization.
How does one determine if the person you've voted for is a personal acquaintance? This is much easier to determine than you might think. (Further explanations in text)

"A representative shall have not less than twice the votes of any of his electors"

If you acquire 100 votes from others (inclusive of your own personal vote), none of your electors can have given you 51 votes because twice 51 is 102 which is 2 more than your present total.
This forces out the necessary hierarchical structure while allowing one person with one vote to vote for another person also having one vote. If otherwise, the number of representatives would proliferate beyond resonable limit as it would be found possible to pass votes around almost endlessly giving government employment to virtually everyone and excessively stretching the chain of command.
This is a clear mathematical necessity.

"The highest representative rules"

[Almost too obvious to include]
Whomsoever has the greatest vote total determines what is to be done in any circumstance whatsoever. If others disapprove they may recall (or merely threaten to recall) their votes thereby influencing the outcome of events by restructuring (or threatening to restructure) the hierarchy.

The foregoing rules are eternally valid. They cannot be altered and none can be added or deleted.

Many other laws and rules of conduct might be appended by elected representatives but these will all be temporary, changeable or locally valid types.

Before going further I should make it clear that this government can only work where the people, in general, have a firm commitment to the representative form. A wild tribe of savages, given the vote, will simply knock each other over the head and take the votes. But they would still be better off with a constitution even if they didn't understand it because it would at least be "in place" and ready to be used when the light finally dawned.
Also, two nations not in "social equilibrium" can have the same type of government but not THE same government. Example - China cannot combine with America else the Chinese culture would dominate American culture which would be found objectionable.
There will one day be a world government, [when the entire earth is in social equilibrium]. But not for another 1000 - 2000 years.


Next Page

Google
 
Web ebtx.com