The word "Cenocracy" refers to a "New Government". While the Cenocracy.org site attempts to provide a schematic of what this entails, it is essential to understand that the formula being offered is not the only idea available. Ideas change and mutate over time. Ideas should be flexible in order to provide for the possibility of needing to adapt. This page will presently be dedicated to listing links and references about Cenocratic (New Government) ideas. A contact page for offering information to additional links will be incorporated at a later time.
It is necessary to note that while ideas may appear quite detailed, we should recognize there is a regular absence of how we should implement a New Government structure. Many people have what "sound" like a good idea, but in applying to human systems of interaction, they are found to be either a needless complexity or a crudely fashion stick figure portrait that anyone can doodle, and by this evidence, is not respected as having any value over some already practiced culturally viewed common sense that does not need to be embellished with bureaucratically defined embellishments.
Necessarily so, is such a New Government idea to be accomplished all at once, by way of a piece-meal fashion in different areas at the same time, or in a single area and then spread outward? Do we allow for change in the intended implementation to take place during construction because someone has come up with a different (better) idea, or is an idea and its initiated formula to be viewed as having been written on stone and should not be changed? Should we permit an alteration in the name of the plan itself? Is a New Government idea "self-aware" to the extent it incorporates a realization of its own genesis as a response to social/environmental changes, of which, for example, the eventual demise of the planet, the solar system and galaxy are taken into account so as to provide a developmental means of re-inventing itself in response there-to?
There are of course other questions one might want to present, but this should not interfere with the efforts of those who sincerely want to offer some means of correcting so many social problems that are being compounded by increases in human population, decreases in some resources, and the multiplicity of associated circumstances such as mental illness, fanaticism, group irrationality, egocentricity, etc... Whereas on smaller scales such events might go unnoticed are dealt with swiftly, the occurrence of such with many individuals involved can produce unintended consequences for many by-standing innocents.
While the knowledge of faults serve the purpose of recognizing errors, there are many of us with a desire to fix them and not use such instances as a perpetual means of bolstering the needs of some underlying adolescent ego. Those who are only interested in tearing something down (in their comments on the internet) without an intent of participating in the developmental construction of something better, should find an outlet with like-minded individuals whose anger is preferentially focused on contributing to social ills, instead of using their energies and resources in efforts with greater lasting value.
Nonetheless, our need for a Cenocracy outweighs the caveats, concerns and those considerations which might serve as obstacles for those who are easily swayed from taking their eyes off the intended goal to assist their fellow human beings in creating governing tools for enhancing life's potentialities and goals, however we may come to collectively define this as a socieity— and whatever this may mean to those in the decades and centuries ahead. There is need for a public forum on ideas for a New Government, but this can only occur if the ideas are presented for public discussion. However, while philosophical discussions taking place on numerous blogs have great merit in many instances, our intent is to find definitive measures of real-life applicability.
(Please visit the 1st link for a larger provisional introduction to the author's view. And it is of importance to point out that the author has an enormous assemblage of personal perspectives on a variety of topics. No doubt such candidness may well have brought the author disagreements with web-hosting services whose stewardships are more inclined towards conservative opinions. The author's site provides a wealth of information for those deeply interested in the multitude of activities which come to light about questionable government involvement.)
At the above link (We need a new form of government) you will also find the following comments about a different formula of governance By Abbey Harty. I include it here along with follow-up comments.
When the New World was colonized there were two historical organizations that immigrated because of suppression. The Puritans believed that they could “purify” the Church of England. However this method failed because of the organization was more interested in reform than unity. The second group were the Separatists who obviously wanted to be separate from the Church of England. They succeed. The following document could potentially allow there to be almost a refreshment in governance without a need for a political collapse. I should also tell you that I am currently not part of any organizations because I have found UPE ideas and communities but most of which rely on a republic system not a direct democracy which should be easier to distribute over the internet. My email and contact information was made for anonymity but I would not rely on it.
United People of Earth Constitution (UPEC)
Crime is the inverse of empathy. The response to a crime will be the inverse of crime. This is to ensure that legality does not become a cruel tradition.
Those that accept the EED are accepted as citizens, even if it cannot be received. The property owned by that citizen is under the protection and authority of the UPE. Activities of the UPE should be conducted in the absence of foreign surveillance and enforcement. It is a human responsibility to embrace new citizens that are in need of this protection.
Y = number of government candidates.
X which represents 1% of government income and the amount of authority that person
holds in office.
The income distribution is based off the bell curve, Y=/ (X= < EED).
After a candidate is accepted he will remain in office for a year, from the time he was accepted. X is similar to a vote, it can only be given or taken voluntarily from the voter.
Businesses and religions cannot participate in government affairs. A business cannot become a monopoly by regulating more than 50% of an economic sector. The economic sectors are divided by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary.
Providers, Scholars and Elders will observe the actions in the other two powers. Government actions hold the authority of the officer’s authority and can be corrected with a greater authority, within that branch. If a unanimous decision is made the authority of the involved will be added as a single authority.
Book of Security (BOS):
Provider: X = number of helped people
The purpose of a Provider is to regulate the nation’s welfare. It is in charge of the production and equal energy distribution (EED) to all citizens from the nation’s electrical generators. Private ownership and production of electrical generators will be registered to subtract from the individual’s EED. The registration of generators before an installation of the UPEC will be rewarded with a 5% increase, from the generator not the overall EED, into the owners EED. Currency is backed by electrical power. A 30% tax on the generators will be for the government. The tax will be divided by the three branches equally. The officer’s income distribution will be 1% of the original 30%. The other 9% the officer will use for government affairs.
Scholar: X = popularity in an abstract system—
The purpose of the Scholar is to investigate events and inform the public. If the context of a trial are not specified by the BOS the Scholar will install an amendment for the BOS until changes are made through election.
Elder: X = a test involving the number and context of judicial cases the candidate knowns, including foreign ones.
The purpose of the Elder is to enforce the BOS through trial and warranted force.
Organizations of citizens that are under the authority of one Leader.
The Leader can exercise his authority regardless of the BOS. This is allowed and protected by six rights:
Freedoms and Securities
If a freedom is being abducted the relative security is imperfect. These rights will be corrected through the BOS.
November 4, 2015, 6:24 pm
Here are some comments to Ms. Harty's post:
Abbey Harty’s ideas should be well received by those seeking a New Formula of Government. I particularly like the comment referring to a “refreshment in governance without a need for a political collapse. Only a die-hard anarchist would want a collapse because it is thought that a better governing would “eventually” emerge out of the chaos. There is no guarantee that a better system would emerge. We must intentionally set into place a workable system.
While many of the points being stressed are understandable, it must be understood that the perspective being espoused may not be clear from all vantage points. Different regions of the globe with individualized governing emphasis may make comparisons a little foggy. For example, the BOS (Book of Security). What exactly does this mean? Does this refer to National security issues or/and personal security issues. Clearly there are some issues that do not need to be revamped every year.
Another example is the usage of a single leader in reference to a collective. The usage of the “collective”, as I am understanding it, gives the impression of being guilds. Again, in this example we have the question of whether the “collective” is to be all the people or individualized groups within a given social sector.
And for a third example, we have the list of Freedoms and Securities. These would appear to be better represented in a Bill of Rights.
While I appreciate the post as an overview and initial offering, I respond with comments in order that the idea can be followed by a larger schematic. It should also reveal its inclination towards a fully vested participatory democracy, unlike the rather hit and miss voting systems we have in place that do not permit the whole of the public to take part in a mandated referendum where the result can become the law of the land.
Those in American expressions of the Occupy Movement tried to initiate attempts to create a practice of Horizontal Participatory Democracy, that may be referred to as Actual or Real Democracy. In any respect, it was an exercise in developing a New Government.
This formula, as well as that presented by the host of this site with respect to the reference of Athenian government, involved a change in the voting behavior of the people. In short, more people got to vote on more issues, though in the modern sense this has deteriorated to vicarious, “Representative” models which exclude the majority of the public from voting on most issues.
Those calling for a decrease in the size (i.e. power) of the government are wrong-headed. In a Democracy (though Communism and Socialism might be included in some respects), the government is supposed to be the whole of the voting public. It is an EXTREMELY LARGE government. Those striving to reduce the size of the government want to reduce the very limited power of the people that they now have. They want to disenfranchise We The People even further. We need to increase the size of the government by increasing the voting power of the people through a re-design in government. Abbey Harty’s view is an example of this attempt to create something better for all of us.
Although I do not know what the final schematic of the government will be, let us push on with our ideas and alter them as best befits our collective wisdom.
Thanks for your post Abbey.
November 4, 2015, 8:52 pm
→ Eleutherocracy™: ←
We are a Brand New Government System, Ideology, and Website containing two cabinets (The People's Cabinet and The Corporate Cabinet) and one Chief Executive Office (The Overseer Office). The Government has checks and balances in serving the government responsibilities of protecting citizens voting rights, enforcing, amending, and adding certain laws. This system is capitalistically oriented; however, its laws are highly enforcing against corporate corruption and bribery, as it important to take Precautions.
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, at least with respect to the initial link, draws attention to the desire for establishing a Direct Democracy, that can be interpreted as a proposal for a Cenocracy (a New Government). Basically, Direct Democracy is a type of Cenocracy based on a paticular set of Voting Parameters, which is a key component of any actual Cenocracy. And though it had not previously been considered a Technology per sey, one might well think of a Cenocracy as such, since implementation will have a direct effect on technology.
However, the Institute's interests are more broad as can be interpreted from its mission statement:
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is a nonprofit think tank which promotes ideas about how technological progress can increase freedom, happiness, and human flourishing in democratic societies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. We call this a "technoprogressive" orientation. Focusing on emerging technologies that have the potential to positively transform social conditions and the quality of human lives - especially "human enhancement technologies" - the IEET seeks to cultivate academic, professional, and popular understanding of their implications, both positive and negative, and to encourage responsible public policies for their safe and equitable use.
Althought the following link doesn't actually provide a schematic for a new government design, it does provide some interesting perspectives for consideration to be applied to the overall intent of discussion for creating a New Government. As the article points out, we know alot about government functioning, and yet all the intellectuals involved with the knowledge are not pushing for a re-design in the overall schematic. Imagine if all the intellectuals had become involved with the Occupy movement to give it direction and formative substance. Though the Occupiers where well-intentioned, the movement fizzled because they did not produce an active objective. And for those pushing for an Equal Rights for Women movement to achieve the development of a lasting product in the form of an amendment; the movement is getting bogged down by being fractured by those trying to align some imaginary ties with Civil Rights and Voting instead of letting the movement stand on its own feet... because such actions portray it is the result of crippled thinking that needs be held up with these two former movements as if they were crutches. The ERA for women needs no crutches. It is its own individual and needs to assert itself as such. Those advocating for the ERA for women need to stop babying it. Stop swaddling it as if it were a doll. It is a living being and needs to be treated as such.