Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Billionaire Funds Artificial Islands, Co-founder of paypal, and first facebook investor
Daniel Realpe
post Aug 18 2011, 12:35 AM
Post #1


Instructor
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 5.655
Joined: 11-October 09
From: Bogota
Member No.: 7.694





Why The World Needs Seasteading
The vision of seasteading is an urgent one. We can already see that existing political systems are straining to cope with the realities of the 21st century. We need to create the next generation of governance: banking systems to better handle the inevitable financial crises, medical regulations that protect people without retarding innovation, and democracies that ensure our representatives truly represent us.

This post has been edited by Daniel Realpe: Aug 18 2011, 12:35 AM


--------------------
Visit my:
INSTRUCTOR PROFILE

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
Gustav Mahler


Subscribe to my Youtube Channel here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Aug 18 2011, 12:51 AM
Post #2


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.728
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



He is correct about current political institutions being anachronisms. However, his ideas would are only one, among many that would have to be considered and synthesized to really overhaul a political system, nobody has the answers. The US Constitution was drawn up by 50 guys in a closed room, with different ideas. In many ways they were more enlightened than politicians today, more dedicated, and less self interested for sure. But still they were men of their times, and certainly elitists. Here is a list of things about how the US Constitution was ratified (which was the prototype for constitutional democracy). Most Americans would be surprised at all this, even look on it as heretical and reject it. But it explains why Washington does not work well for us today, and I think the same applies to all democracies out there in various ways. I got this list from a different person, but it corroborates my findings based on my readings of American history.


i) The US constitution was enacted to protect the interests of: a) the moneyed classes (the rich), cool.gif the bond and stock holding classes (the rich speculators), c) the manufacturing interests (rich capitalists), and trade and shipping interests (the rich capitalist speculators).

ii) The constitution was the result of an elite group of men representing the aforementioned interests.

iii) The constitutional convention held in Philadelphia was organized undemocratically by the aforementioned elite group of men to secure the aforementioned interests.

iv) Those not holding the aforementioned interests (the poor) were excluded from participation in the constitutional process.

v) Those participating in the Philadelphia convention personally benefited from the outcome of that convention (the constitution).

vi) The US constitution is a document protecting private property rights over that of a democratic people and/or its government.

vii) These assertions are on record as evidenced by the property and monetary interests of those who proposed and passed the US constitution.

viii) In the ratification of the US constitution, 3/4 of the qualified voters were excluded by some means or another, aiding the 1/4 who benefited from the passage of the constitution.

ix) The ratification of the US constitution was further narrowed down to where only 1/6 of the qualified voters participated in its passing.

x) Therefore, the majority of qualified voters did not participate in the ratification of the US constitution.

xi) This 1/6 who ratified the constitution were the same minority who held large holdings in money, bonds and stocks, manufacturing, and trade and shipping.

xii) The main societal divisions in the ratification of the US constitution were among classes cited in i) and the farming and debtor classes at that time.

xiii) The constitution was therefore not created by "the people," but by the those motivated by the monetary interests cited in i).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daniel Realpe
post Aug 18 2011, 12:57 AM
Post #3


Instructor
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 5.655
Joined: 11-October 09
From: Bogota
Member No.: 7.694



Yeah, I agree with that. That's why I think it might be interesting to experimenting a new socio-political system in a completely new space. Maybe one with a different economical system where there's not involvement of money as a resource.

I think there's a lot of potential in these experimental societies as they could lead the way to profound changes in our current system.


--------------------
Visit my:
INSTRUCTOR PROFILE

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
Gustav Mahler


Subscribe to my Youtube Channel here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Uncreator
post Aug 18 2011, 12:58 AM
Post #4


Fire Up The Blades, Moderator
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 8.933
Joined: 6-March 07
From: St. Petersburg, Florida
Member No.: 1.304



I'd love to see this come into full fruition. As a means for experimenting with political and social systems I think it has great value. Its complexity however will make this endeavor not so easy. As many good - or at least - informative, things that could come of this, the potential for disaster and tragedy is quite high. I can only hope this would be overseen by people who have the adequate capacity to handle this situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Michael AC
post Aug 18 2011, 01:29 AM
Post #5


Learning Apprentice Player
*

Group: Members
Posts: 342
Joined: 15-December 10
From: Newark, Ohio
Member No.: 11.817



The answer to this is to actually enforce Constitutional expectations. Our current government policy is so far removed from the liberty and innovative freedom outlined in our constitution that it is no wonder people think it should be changed. The difference is that the current US government body needs changed to be bound by the constitution. If it was, the entrepreneur spirit of this man and many other innovative people would have the environment needed to bring ideas to light without government distraction or confiscation.

Historical revisionism has turned the men who brought the greatest government model to life into tyrants and self absorbed people. Reading the "original" writings of these men and not others opinions or interpretations would do many people well.

Self government is what we all need, in that our Constitution thrives, if men want others to govern them then our current political client is what they deserve.

Freedom and liberty are the greatest avenues to provide for the poor, the innovative and the marvelous society the United States was founded to be.

This post has been edited by Michael AC: Aug 18 2011, 01:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Figallo
post Aug 18 2011, 01:48 AM
Post #6


Instructor
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 3.466
Joined: 24-October 09
From: lima peru
Member No.: 7.730



wow this is very interesting.. will google them.


--------------------


Check my Instructor Profile Rockers!
Got a Blog too!, www.adriantracks.com


Follow me on facebook and youtube!
-Facebook
-Youtube




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Aug 18 2011, 03:24 AM
Post #7


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.728
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



My Favorite Author on the Constitutional Period is John Ferling, an retired academic historian. If nothing else, his vocabulary and eloquence is striking. He most recent books are "The Ascent of George Washington" and "Independence", both of which I have read. Some don't appreciate him, while he recognizes the extraordinary qualities of the founders, he still humanizes them, some people want to look on them as beatified Saints, and lash out at anyone who refutes that perspective. The process that created the Constitution is not what most people think, it was largely an effort by elitists to protect their debt holdings, land speculations, and slave holdings, from threats by egalitarian movements going on at State levels at the time. It was designed to be very rigid, to prevent any dramatic changes, which are always threatening to the very wealthy. There was no popular grass roots movement for a new Constitution, it was sold to the States with an effective propaganda campaign, and in effect its ratification circumvented an eventual more egalitarian constitution from eventually being enacted.

That being said, they still did a pretty good job, and I would argue that too much grass roots democracy is not in anyone's interest. The "herd" tends to be very volatile, the public needs to protect themselves from themselves to an extent. Without a doubt the structure of federal government in the US is certainly outdated in several ways. It makes little sense for Rhode Island to have the same power in the Senate as California, but they do. Life tenure for Federal Justices used to mean maybe a dozen years. If the founders envisioned 30+ years as we have today, nobody would have dreamed of giving them life tenure in the Constitution.

I have read extensively, but I don't know what the answers are, just that what we have is a Model T Ford. It would take a room full of wise and dedicated men to come up with something better. But nobody has the answers themselves, if you look at the original models of John Adams, and others, you see some good things, but some things that in retrospect that would have been ill advised.

edit: Regarding history, which you really have to read a lot of to understand any of this, the complexities, it is always very detailed when good history. Thus is is boring for some people. But there is no way out of that. A historian can only really be convincing if they look at all written records, private or public, with a lot of skepticism as to the motivations of the writer. So to make any reasonable judgement one has to look at everything from a number of independent angles, independent sources, and see how that all collaborates into a reasonable synthesis. Basically you assume everybody was telling and writing half truths at best, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus is is detailed. But I never find that boring myself. All in all, I think a good deal of compromising is generally the best rout, extremism in any direction generally leads to something deleterious.

QUOTE (Michael AC @ Aug 17 2011, 07:29 PM) *
The answer to this is to actually enforce Constitutional expectations. Our current government policy is so far removed from the liberty and innovative freedom outlind in our constitution that it is no wonder people think it should be changed. The difference is that the current US government body needs changed to be bound by the constitution. If it was, the entrepreneur spirit of this man and many other innovative people would have the environment needed to bring ideas to light without government distraction or confiscation.

Historical revisionism has turned the men who brought the greatest government model to life into tyrants and self absorbed people. Reading the "original" writings of these men and not others opinions or interpretations would do many people well.

Self government is what we all need, in that our Constitution thrives, if men want others to govern them then our current political client is what they deserve.

Freedom and liberty are the greatest avenues to provide for the poor, the innovative and the marvelous society the United States was founded to be.


This post has been edited by fkalich: Aug 18 2011, 03:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Michael AC
post Aug 18 2011, 09:40 PM
Post #8


Learning Apprentice Player
*

Group: Members
Posts: 342
Joined: 15-December 10
From: Newark, Ohio
Member No.: 11.817



I agree that there are those that can take the men themselves to extremes, many times they have not read the original writings either. They were mere men. The difference is they were statesmen and not politicians.

There is large debate on the electoral college and life appointments of judiciary. Again this is an issue that is viewed in light of current political environment which is the problem, not the Constitution. A favorite quote of mine: John Adams “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The Constitution in and of itself allows for change that enhances the freedom and liberty of all citizens. (A good example is women voting or full rights of Black Americans) What has happened is corrupt men have made laws overlaying the principles and boundaries of the Constitution without constraint on their actions.

Now we are approaching a true democracy (mob rule) and not a republic (rule of law) as founded. After democracy comes anarchy then dictators rise and so on.

It does not have to be complicated, self governance just needs re-established. IMHO biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Michael AC: Aug 18 2011, 09:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Aug 19 2011, 02:07 AM
Post #9


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.124
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



QUOTE (Daniel Realpe @ Aug 17 2011, 07:35 PM) *


Why The World Needs Seasteading
The vision of seasteading is an urgent one. We can already see that existing political systems are straining to cope with the realities of the 21st century. We need to create the next generation of governance: banking systems to better handle the inevitable financial crises, medical regulations that protect people without retarding innovation, and democracies that ensure our representatives truly represent us.


I"m all for new approaches smile.gif Can't wait to see what happens with this!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daniel Realpe
post Aug 19 2011, 11:30 AM
Post #10


Instructor
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 5.655
Joined: 11-October 09
From: Bogota
Member No.: 7.694



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Aug 19 2011, 02:07 AM) *
I"m all for new approaches smile.gif Can't wait to see what happens with this!

yeah, same here


--------------------
Visit my:
INSTRUCTOR PROFILE

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
Gustav Mahler


Subscribe to my Youtube Channel here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th March 2017 - 08:36 PM