Easy way to remember a (5:10)=50:N(50):N(10-50) Council model

[Jos Boersema]

> Step 1:
>
> - A small group (10) of people;
> - finds several (5) other such small groups;
> - to create a Council (1) together;
> - for which they choose a chair person (1),
> - for which they choose a representative to represent them (1);
> - for which they choose a reserve representative (1);
> - and all these they choose are different persons, it may not be
> combined in one person.
> - Whoever is chosen can always be replaced any moment by those electing
> that person, and this is true for the whole Council model.
>
> Step 2:
>
> - If the organization is large enough to have multiple (N) of these
> so created Councils, the representatives (not the reserve
> representatives) come together in Councils like in the first step.
> They can form Councils themselves according to the need for having
> such Councils. A likely scenario is the geographic separation
> determining the need for separate Councils in different areas, however
> it can also be separate councils based on something else (whatever you
> want, and what makes sense; it can even be minhag if you want I guess).
>
> When it concerns a Government (a Sovereignty), a minimum amount of
> representatives (50) is necessary to form an authority of a local
> Government.
>
> Step 3:
>
> - When the amount of representatives in a council becomes unwieldy,
> the representatives may elect from between themselves second tier
> representatives, by forming sections of variable but similar size.
> Each section selects their second tier representative.
> - All the representatives together form (as it where) the Parliament,
> which you could call the most serious Government.
>
> If this concerns a Sovereignty (highest Government in the land),
> all the representatives together must vote upon what is to be law.
> - All the representatives together, if an unwieldy large group, divide
> into sections (N-50), to elect the highest body of the organization.

The exact model is detailed in
https://www.socialism.nl/book4/gratis/Distribute_power-combibook_2.8.pdf

An easy way to remember the model (if it seems confusing) could be:

- Your left arm, the shoulder represents you.
- Your left arm, the elbow represents your group of 10.
- Your left arm, the hand (5 fingers) represent 5 groups of 10,
is your direct Council (or called voter-group) of 50. This is the base
population themselves, they are not elected (and also not necessarily
certified in any way, except by age, but the group decides whom to
allow to be in that group, and individuals decide if they want to join
and decide to leave if they want).
- The representative of Council group can be likened to a tool in the hand,
which is the whole hand acting as one for a purpose.

Left Shoulder, left elbow, left hand, tool in it.
Yourself, your group of 10, your group of 50, your representative.

Then for the second tier councils:

- Your right arm, the shoulder represents you again. The shoulder, but
more precisely your entire body except for the arms.
- Your right arm, the elbow represents the Council(s) where your
representative is a part off himself (herself). This could typically
be at least a local Council of convenient size (50), plus the
collective of all the delegates (law maker in a Sovereign State, the
most powerful Government body in the Nation).
- Notice how you can grab your right elbow with your left hand: your
delegate is in the first tier Council(s), and you may try to influence
this Council directly through that delegate (hand), who is part of it.
- You right hand, the second tier elected Council(s), for which your
representative has been part of electing someone with the section of
first tier delegates he is a part off.
- A tool in the right hand represents people who are appointed by this
second tier Council to do various jobs, which in a Sovereign State are
typically your Department heads (English), which we can 'Ministers'
in the Netherlands. These people can be placed and removed, just like
a tool, and they serve a specific purpose. If the hands grabs such a
tool, and then another, it is the Council calling that Minister to
account, and then instructing another.

T.1 means tier 1, T.2 means tier 2 (this schematic requires a fixed
font to be readable):


Right: Left:
(Head)
(you)

Shoulder Shoulder
(you) (you)

Elbow Elbow
(Council T.1) (10)
\
Hand \ Hand
(Council T.2) \ (50)
\
Tool Tool
(Employee) (Representative T.1)


I guess it isn't perfect, but could help you make sense out of it.
While the step of 10 for a sub-council is an implicit step (and you
could certainly do a different size such as 5) in this model (as it is
described and proposed), it seems nevertheless quite important from a
personal perspective. These are the people you relate to the most, and
only then you step to the whole Council of 50 (assembled base population
or group members). While it isn't described as having any official
separate power, it does seem to be one of the most important aspects in
the practice of it.

*

Size of Nations
---------------

While I think you could argue that if humanity becomes completely honest
and good, then you could make more and more tiers function correctly.
However I think that if humanity becomes completely honest and good, you
can also have the relations between Sovereign Nations function
correctly. You don't need to create more and more tiers if you want some
sort of organized framework for an unlimited amount of people to come
together in some way.

The Sovereign Nations can treat each other like brothers and sisters,
have a good chat and make a decision based on the flow of their talks,
which they could have while retaining their Sovereignty. Any agreements
they might make are then no more than a proposal to the Council, and
may from there be rejected, approved, altered and removed, as all other
proposals and decisions.

How many people need to be combined in one Sovereignty, before it should
be Sovereign, is an important question. By war and Empire, I think
humanity makes it generally far too large. Nations of Scandinavia are on
average 5 million, Swiss is not that big, Netherlands (with its important
1566 Revolution) is not that big, Israel is not that big, etc. USA is
a monstrous empire of 50 Sovereign States, which is creating hell on
Earth, the European Union is one of the disasters they have created,
China is a tyranny as usual, etc.

I think a Nation of some 5 million people, is already a Federation of
areas of land and people so great that the ordinary people is
essentially lost in it. That is already pushing far the human limits.
That is already an Empire of Nations. If you go back in history you also
see that 'Nations' had just parts of territories of huge Empires which
are now called 'Nations'. Israel is already a federation of 12 Nations,
Tribes, 12 Tribes. It is a lot. What does a Sovereign Constitution,
Goverenmnt and law need to do, how many resources does their economy
need to be well rounded ? In the not distant past, a village of 300
could already be a de-facto Sovereignty, have everything they needed to
survive, and survive on their own they did, even if they traded further
afield, which is no problem for a Sovereign Nation either. How many
people do you need, before you can shoulder the costs of having a Judge
specialized in the job, or a full time Council member ? Millions of
people is more than enough to have this, while even the village elders
are enough to do the job.

Good example makes good following, bad example and everyone can learn,
and this is why it is important to at least have enough Sovereign
Nations in existence, and certainly not what the world is doing now:
uniting under one clique (and criminal it is).

Therefore I stick to the maximum 2 delegates tier model, 1,.2), and
think it is good enough, even in the future. We can learn from history
that changing the voter group size does not work. This was done in the
1917 Revolution in Russia, and did not function correctly. The group
becomes far too large to have effective control and re-elections. That
model failed for other reasons also however: a bad economic model they
where trying to implement (totalitarian plan economy), and they where
not ready for it at all (the Councils where apathetic, did not know what
to do). These are separate issues, and have been resolved (I think at
least) in the proposed system (economic model, the rest of the Government
model, and the '9 ways' implementation plan).

They combined the worst of everything in 1917: bad planning generally,
a people not used to this kind of work, a war situation upon them, a
humanitarian crisis of the first order created by the Czar his crazed rule
and the first world war, the system was not tightly described or thought
out at all (completely loose from the gun, groups here groups there, all
various sizes), the job these councils where given was impossible because
to run a plan economy and do away with trade and private initiative is
insanity and will never work (until humans become angels I guess). That
they tried it at all and made enough of an attempt to at least reach the
history books, was already an achievement under those conditions and
demands. You may want to notice how natural this form of organization
and Constitution is: it is just people standing together, forming a
unity of mind, and sending their thoughts and will to other such groups
through a messenger. It all goes from there. It is basic and natural.
On an extremely large scale, the scale of modern Nations, it needs to be
worked out in detail, and it needs to be worked out well, because the
larger the more difficult it gets. More people, more problems.

If modern parliament would have worked, that would have been wonderful.
Then we would have the solution. Sadly it does not work adequately. It
is too corrupt, and there are bottlenecks in its power (centralized
elections, party head quarters, and standing de-facto unalterable
mandates for years). The parliamentary model stimulates strife, because
all the representatives are gathered from a sort of a competitior
between factions who want to become the largest. They compete for the
same voters, it is a fighting model in that sense. This Council model is
not a fighting model, at least not at the root of it. It is still
perfectly possible that the model will fail, but on paper it looks good.
(Famous last words ;-)

Omg I can see that happen ... massive Revolution, complete failure and
then a new proverb for eternity ... "On paper it looked good!" XD
But you have to admit, especially once you tried to describe the current
parliamentary general elections model or other models in similar detail
to explain it to someone who has no clue, that this model here proposed
(a worked out Council Government model) looks pretty decent on paper,
does it not ? I think that this also matters, because looking good
implies simplicity and elegance, and these are tools of power for
people.

It needs to be simple to be effective. "I (first tier delegate) represent
*you*, and if you don't like it, you can right now declare you left this
voter group, and then I do not represent you anymore." This can mean a
lot to that voter group, even the loss of their participation, if they
end up with too few members to be part of a Sovereign Government. For
example they dropped from 50 to 49 members, that means that delegate has
lost its standing. They need to find someone else to fill the gap, or
listen to this person their grievances to keep him in. So you see the
individual has a lot more power in this model. Also people who are not
organized who see a wrong, can suddenly organize any day, and push their
delegates into the Councils, start voting right away, start changing the
membership of the National Government if they are with enough. No need
to wait for a general election.

Overall the model is: more close knit social, it is more participatory
although you can ignore things if you want (participate on a level you
like), it is more dynamic (people can be constantly re-elected), more
direct, more horizontal, initiative is with the people and in that sense
it is open.

Okay, I can go on like this for another 100 pages, have a nice day.

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
1ith a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl