(The following information was formerly attached to the Home page whose length got too long for a single page, so it was split.)
We Cenocrats as we may be called; advocate positive changes in social conditions by way of altering the governing structure— to produce a new form of governance that is liberated from the many constraints the people are being subjected to, and thus denies us all from establishing honorable traditions of an Actual Democracy. Stated as such, we wish to Set Democracy Free! from its imposed limitations. But we are not speaking as social workers intent on securing viable positions of social service maintenance for which large paychecks may be paid, in some circumstances, while the poor and indigent others suffer without respite except for government scraps... while military activity wastes hundreds of millions on bombs which produce a lasting resentment and anger against us. Thus, as a point of expressing an increased level of intent, without appearing to be belligerent, we are speaking as many Sociologists and Political Scientists who want changes to the structure of the overall government... because advocating mere changes in process is tantamount to a change in detergents for washing clothes, but the people must retain the usage of a scrub board and make-shift clothes line, while those in authority have access to and ownership of washing and drying machines that the public is forced to pay for. Advocating mere changes in processes is a fool's errand... because there are so many social issues that need to be addressed, there is cause to suspect that the practiced structure of government is itself part of the problem.
The present practices of democracy dishonors us all, because of the limitations imposed on our Right to experience a level of free, collective agency. Our freedoms can not be truly preserved unless we are free to enable such a practice of Liberty to insure such a guarantee. These constraints keep us... as communities, as nations, and as a species... from reaching our fullest potentials by denying us a most basic inalienable right of both individual and collective self-Representation as a Constitutionally mandated Checks and Balances provision that no singular or collective action of any government branch or department can undermine by subterfuge or overt demand or formulated direction. Instead of practicing such a full expression of Democracy, we are forcibly subjected to recurring instances of social debilitation in one or another form, with the need for ever more social experiments (called social programs) that appear to be compounding problems that were not adequately addressed in the first place... because the underlying pressures of formation were not comprehensively understood. Granted, we humans are not omniscient, but we can do better than this.
As we gain more understanding, it is the provenance of intellectuals, such as professor Margaret Levi, to assert the call for the development of a New Theory of Government. For those who are not in the realms of academia, though have intellectually surmised the need for developing a new government, they may well promote the proposal by creating the beginning of a schematic along these lines... developed from one or another premise that may or may not be fully articulated because creative ideas can spring from impressions whose clarity of distinction embodies a dream-like aura. Creativity can be an enigmatic character. Sometimes, ideas begin as vague considerations which blossom, over time, into a portrait representing an amalgamation of bits and pieces sewn together into a tapestry that is not fully appreciated until we take a few steps back and take a panoramic view. Those of us involved with wanting to establish a new form of governance, are tired of the listening to all the bickering about singular social issues which infrequently lead to the formulation of effective results. There are numerous web pages describing multiple instances of problems that have been or are the result of poor government practices. Many of us see the problems. But seeing and talking about them does not necessarily result in fixing them, particularly if the resolutions to be sought are expected to occur within the same government guidelines and practices which participated in developing a problem in the first place. All such web pages need to begin promoting the discussions for creating a Cenocracy.
Many of us know that it is past time for comprehensive changes in governance to take place, and not by the traditional route of simply changing one politician for another. Realizing that it is time for a new liberation is behind the perspective Alexander Taylor is attempting to address in his formulation of a New Government structure called a Eleutherocracy™. His ideas are a work-in-progress that he fully acknowledges and is receptive to the view that adopted usage of any government structure can be transformed over time in response to changing environmental and social conditions which can also affect us physiologically as well as biologically. He is providing his efforts in what might philosophically be rendered as a generative "Transformational Government" proposal, if we might be permitted to play on the "Transformational Grammar" phrase adopted by Noam Chomsky in his linguistic research. (The analogy is used though it may be lost on those readers not familiar with studies in linguistics. Fundamentals in language structure have a decided impact on perceptions from which our beliefs are derived.)
Many people in their own way, with their own representations, with or without a neologism or abbreviated symbolism; are calling for a liberation of Democracy. We want Democracy to evolve into its next generation of developmental expression. (And some may want to include Communism, Socialism and Theocracy in this equation as well... and let us not fail to include the idea that there is an active form of socialism being practiced under the auspices of democracy called the military. The command structures of all militaries are variously organized on socialist principles which practice State ownership of industry and capital relying on an obedience to unquestioned authority that has the first, secondary and last word... particularly noted when it has its own brand of legal system.)
We want to liberate Democracy from its current fetters which we believe contributes to recurring social problems because the prevailing governing practices are outlined with a schematic which invites degradations on both personal and collective levels to occur— creating the conditions for such to render us be susceptibly vulnerable thereto. By practicing the brand of (limited) Democracy that we do, we constrain ourselves to participate in creating problems which re-occur, like a child who leaves toys around which cause us to stumble or fall. The present governing system uses rule-of-thumb which promote conditions that are particularly amiable to promoting destructive self-fulfilling prophesies as a means of punishing ourselves for an undisclosed collectively felt guilt for having one regret or another because the present formula of democracy limits our ability to pursue our greater potentials.
There are not only too many constraints on individual and collective choice, but that when these constraints are relaxed under the present governing environments, the people are left with but to choose between the lesser of two or more evils... because this is the prevailing social atmosphere. Like a butterfly awaiting development, humanity is being kept from its development progression by governmental formulas which are akin to binding the feet in order to curtail any interest to pursue growth beyond a limited environment. It is an atmosphere we have been subjected to for so long that it is difficult for many people to see past their own finger-tips, much less begin a sober dialogue of discussing ways to begin the trek towards the next developmental stage. Instead, far too many view the growing problems with present governing structures as the signal of an imagined Apocalypse defining the end of the species, instead of as part of the process for continuing our progression.
In terms of progression, as such, with many references using computing analogies, we can compare present practices of democracy to be akin to first generation computer games. The architecture of the programming needs a fundamental alteration in order to permit an expansion of capabilities and potentialities because it is too limiting. While its programmers and players are comfortable and adept at the usage of such, the rest of the population... who are ready for an environment of expansive e-quality, have long been ready to move beyond the constraints imposed upon them by a functionality of standards that the authoritative few are fearful of letting go of because all of life is defined in close proximity there-with... and without which they are lost and think everyone will have to resort to their opposite baser instincts of survival because their mind is based on a (binary) dichotomy of haves and have-nots (ones and zeroes), while the human brain's neurons communicate, generally speaking, in a triplicity of ones (1s), zeroes (0's), and minus zeroes (-0's), thus creating a new equation base which includes the afford-ability to increase equality through addition or cancellation of discrepancies.
The traditional antagonisms cited in religion and various other primivities of psychology can have a mutually beneficial intercessory component not fully realized or appreciated in the perspectives of older contexts where everything was cast into diametric points of opposition. For some, the analogy may become more poignant if we make a comparison between the computer and the human brain: Whereas opposing ideas were (and are) generously used when populations are small, it is of need to note that an increasing population requires a different type of organizational thinking because the raw (dichotomous) power of the computer is dwarfed by the 100 billion cells of the (trichotomous) human brain. Computers can not comparable think in human terms without applying a three-based programming exchange exceeding the fundamentals of boolean logic.
Democracy must be liberated in order to be used to intervene on our behalf. However, we are not talking about the pursuit of anarchy, or a laissez faire attitude. A 'release from constraints' means a larger application of democracy with a new formula. The old, the presently practiced formulas have schematics like a Rubic's Cube that some become very skilled at performing certain functions, and may appear as experts; but when a new design of governance takes place, they may find themselves to be the village idiots... and they will do anything to prevent such an occurrence. Such is the obstacle protestors are confronted with.
Cenocracies (New Governments) have come and gone throughout history. Many have acquired different names while some names such as Democracy have been molded and traded according to the social currencies of a given era. Communism, Democracy and Socialism are all types of Cenocracy's. If a business ethic plays the dominant role in a social setting, it is the prevailing Cenocracy. A theocracy can be a Cenocracy as well. But in every case, a Cenocracy, a New Government, is the controlling mechanism of who gets to vote on what, when, where and how... and let us include the 'why'. Such as, why a particular or group of people get to vote on what... at a given time and place (when and where). In the present circumstances of differently practiced Democracies throughout the world, each represents a model of voting... particularly how to control it. In order to establish a Cenocracy which supersedes any form of government existing today, there must be changes in who gets to vote on what, when, where and how... as well as why.
For example, while many claim that permitting the people to freely vote on different political candidates, and have the winners of the voting contest (the chosen ones) become political leaders... is an expression of a "True" Democracy; this widely practiced formula is the expression of a limited democracy. The people are expected to defer all other voting abilities to the elected candidates. The people themselves are routinely taken out of the equation... though they are supposed to represent the government. Only by providing the overall public with a greater practice of voting can an actual Cenocracy (New Government) take place. It is not readily achieved simply by changing one candidate for another or altering the presiding structure of government if no real increase in public voting ability is achieved. It matters not how complex or simplified a governing structure is nor by what name it, a given department or governmental branch is called or what word is used to entitle someone with. A Cenocracy must fundamentally alter the voting structure. With each new government change has come an increase in the public's ability to vote their own mind. Each formula of Cenocracy has reduced or eliminated the presiding practice of vicarious/"Representative" (proportioned) governance and increased the public's ability to vote on issues themselves. Measures of voting by way of Referendum become increased. If they do not, the preceding government is not undergoing a Cenocracy, just a re-shuffling to give the falsified impression of improvement.
Reiterated, the word "Cenocracy" means "New Government". Different people have their own idea about what they think is the best government, or at least better than the present type of Democracy (or Communism, or Socialism) being practiced. Some have elected to create a new name to go along with their idea. Instead of developing an idea for a New Government, others have preferred to focus their energies and resources on advocating some method of creating an atmosphere for producing reform, such as by way of a protest, petition or simply stating they want to "Overthrow the Government". However, in voicing the phrase "Overthrow The government", it should be understood that most of us are not "Anti-Government" nor "Anti-establishment" and in no way want to imply an anarchist profile directed towards produce chaos in order to effect changes, that could result in worst conditions if we do not strive to produce a better formula of governance. We are Pro-Government and want to establish something better than what we have and perceive to be numerous short-comings that need to be addressed... but are not, and the reason(s) they aren't is believed to be due to some thought or deed that is not in the best interests of the public, animals or environment.
There is a widespread view that the government, as it is presently practiced, is not good enough, and the people want to make changes to a particular law or policy or create a different type of governing practice which will best suit the ability of the public to make changes to "their" government. It is widely understood that simply replacing one political candidate for another, will not necessarily result in any substantial changes to government policies because the design of the government is predicated on perpetuating itself in a given fashion. It is highly unreceptive to change. Change that does come about is frequently of a superficial nature in terms of renaming, re-shuffling people and other resources, or through restrictions. However, the basic structure remains and prominent parts (or people) can become placed into a semi-dormant category whereby other semi-dormant structures are permitted to emerge from their vestigial function with or without a new title or era-specific embellishments; thus giving the impression that some real change has taken place, when it is just a sleight-of-hand illusion.
It should be understood, though it is actually vaguely comprehended, that a "Democracy" means a "peoples rule or peoples" government, though variations as to the meaning of the word 'democracy' do occur. And though some people think that the U.S. brand of Democracy is predicated on the notion represented by the phrase Of, By and For (all) the people as described in Lincoln's Gettysburg address, such an idea is not incorporated as a standard definition in the Constitution. It is a cultural belief, an urban legend so-to-speak, that is accepted as being true, but there is little factual evidence for. Nonetheless, a "Democracy" is supposed to mean that the people are an authorized part of the overall government franchise... that we may analogously describe as a very large company.
With the foregoing said, this means the entire nation represents the government because everyone is part of the franchise. Thus, it is extremely erroneous for anyone to preach for a reduction, decrease or limit in the size of the government, because this means they want to cut some or most of us out of the franchise. They want to reduce our stock holdings in the government (company), but still be required to pay a share of the costs for running the company (by way of taxes). They want the people to be a silent, limited partner who must contribute to the venture, but not be able to provide any control over how the money is spent, nor produce any guidelines (laws) as to how the government (company) should be run. In effect, those who are calling for the practice of limiting the (power of) the government, are trying to convince the stock-holding public to vote in favor of reducing their ability to vote... to not only further reduce the limitations imposed on the (stock-holding) public, but to deny a full participation in the functions of the government (company).
At present, the public is already subjected to severe voting limitations... which define the practice of a limited democracy defining a limited membership in the governing franchise. Therefore, those calling for limited government are calling for a reduction in the practice of Democracy. They prefer a type of democracy tailored to their ulterior motivated interests coupled to self-survival. The only way to combat excessive abuses of power by both government and those who are striving to gain more voting power for themselves by reducing the voting power of the public, is to increase the practice of Democracy by increasing the public's ability to vote. The present voting parameters of the public are extremely limited because they are a reverberated echo of an Age when public voting rights were limited and assumed to be the best way to insure control of commerce by a few land owning white men. However, it is incredulous to think that fairness and equality are better practiced if the historical role of governing white men is simply replaced by women, or those of another race. Such substitutions do not provide the overall public with an increased practice of fairness and equality for all to share.
While this website is denoted as "Cenocracy.org", the word "Cenocracy" has application to any idea concerning government improvement. The present focus being advocated at this site is to basically promote the idea for enhancing the public's severely diminished Voting Rights. Increased voting rights should not be a culturally accepted given to those who are elected to a government position... which further entitles some of them to choose those who are not expected to commit themselves towards being directly answerable to the public. Equality in voting rights must be established. The ability to largely (and mostly) vote for political candidates as the primary expression of voting in a Democracy, is an hypocrisy. We Cenocrats think that all eligible voters should have the right to vote on any and all issues by way of practicing a Constitutionally mandated Referendum that is best accomplished by the usage of a Peoples Legislative Branch, as illustrated in the following generalization:
The first image below is the standard illustration of the U.S. Government, while the second is a generalized schematic involving the implementation of the people as a direct participant that can increase or decrease the government's ability (power) by way of a Collective Will. And even though different countries may have their own variants, the basic idea is attributable to them as well:
The only way to effectively limit the possible undesirable imposition of unchecked
and unbalanced power in the current structure of government, is to design a Cenocracy
(New Government) by increasing the size of government through a Constitutionally-mandated
action of substantially enlarging the practice of an Actual Democracy.|
The practice of Democracy revolves around how much political power a public has with respect to their voting ability. The Fore-fathers of America, just like other Nations leaders influenced by business and religion, imposed different limitations on the voting power of the people, in order to better effect policies congruent to their interests. When it becomes publicly disfavorable for the government to not grant voting rights to a given population, increased voting rights are aligned with voting restrictions... (what and how the people are permitted to vote on), are imposed by not permitting the public to vote on certain issues.
Theoretical formulations for a Cenocracy must address the circumstances of voting. Will the people get more or less voting power or does the plan merely reflect the present practices under various personnel and agency shuffling detractions or embellishments?
At present, the equality of the public's voting Rights is extremely limited. In fact, we are being collectively treated as serfs, indentured servants and slaves with respect to our voting rights. We Cenocrats want to substantially increase the voting power of the people to be able to vote on any and all issues that the public so desires to. Restricting this ability is a supreme level of discrimination against the entire population and must be remedied. The present practice of vicarious (Representative) government is just a tactic established by a few to maintain a governance by a few, by keeping the people from having equal voting rights... particularly when a "democracy" is alternatively described as the "peoples government"... and thus makes the cultural practice of unequal voting rights an hypocrisy. We Cenocrats think the best way for accomplishing this is by altering the underlying structure of the government so that this ability is Constitutionally mandated in order to guarantee and protect this Equal Voting Right by established laws. Thus, a public level of legitimization is duly warranted and equivocations to the call for an enhanced voting standard can easily be supplanted into negligibility. This enhancement of voting is directly tied to a new formula of Equal Rights. The old (present) Equal Rights political movement is focused on Women only:
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time...
This definition and usage of an "Equal Rights" philosophy is discriminatory because it limits the acquisition of enhancing Equal Rights to (for) women only, based on a gender-described discrepancies such as pay differences being received between men and women in some occupations; though some adherents want an Equal Rights provision to involve all aspects of life... and is the very provision that some women do not want to include because it would then remove privileges granted to women based on their sex and its historically ingrained traditional care-giver roles. (Men and hence a male-dominant legislature necessarily treat women different because of their sex.)
The views of those supporting an Equal Rights Amendment have attached a "Voting Rights" approach to its perspective, though Equal Rights based on gender issues is significantly different from Equal Voting Rights between the citizenry and those who are elected to traditional authoritative governing roles. They are separate, but related issues. The two deserve separate distinctions. Supporting an "Equal Rights Amendment" for women is not the same as supporting an "Equal Voting Rights" Amendment for the entire nation. An Equal Rights Amendment for women is best handled by a vote cast by the entire nation, since it concerns us all, as a Nation, like so many other issues.
An Equal Rights Amendment for women will undoubtedly have a far reaching effect for all issues governing women... if all aspects of society are required to abide. An Equal Rights Amendment is a National Issue with global ramifications for all women everywhere. It is a Civil Rights Issue for Women that will impact families as well as single men, but it is not to be definitively entitled with the distinction of being a Civil Rights issue for everyone. Trying to tie an Equal Rights Amendment for Women with other issues concerning all of us in order to attribute greater significance to the ERA-for women movement, is the same sort of nonsense the people have to deal with by those their own special interests to a Legislative Bill; as if they were necessary symbionts instead of parasites on a host that needs to stand alone. Civil Rights and Voting Rights are stand-alone issues that deserve individual respect, just as the ERA-for women. Trying to put on other issues cheapens its value like natural beauty being subjected to needless embellishments such as make-up, jewelry and gaudy fashion design. The ERA- for women has its own necessary inherent worth... and should strive to retain this honest value.
The ERA- for women continues to step on its own feet by dealing with too many generalities and not specificities. Reciting enumerated data highlighting percentages does not address the specificities of the overall ERA organization's efforts itself. An analogy to this is that present initiatives are being written and expressed in the format of a Girl Scout manual, when it needs include information in the formulaic model of a Boy Scout manual. Enumerating chapters, providing an index and utilizing footnotes is not enough. One is written in the style of a female psyche and the other exhibits a male psyche orientation. We can not have an ERA- for women if it is to be organized like the arrangements of an afternoon tea-party with outlined seating arrangements... no matter how intelligent and important sounding ERA members appear to themselves, or participate in ceremonialism at meetings. Whereas it may socially function as an accepted vocally distributed manual, it can not be written into law like a sketch-pad, shopping list or things-to-do reference. This is the way the ERA- for women is coming across to many people, and this is why they remain hesitant of prominently supporting it... because they can't figure out the generalities they are being presented with. You can't reach the goal if the team players are being recruited from different cheer-leading squads focused on differently styled chants and acrobatic routines. You need to stop pussy-footing around and get down to business. Quit gabbing over the neighbor's fence and get the housework and yard-work done! Where is Rosie the Riveter when you need her? Just because you take fellow members serious doesn't mean everyone else does. Just because you have planted a garden with multiple vegetables does not mean the larger public will stop and buy-into what you are selling... so long as you continue to set up shop along paths that are divergent from being able to focus the prominent interest of varying social under-currents.
The ERA- for women should not try to advertise itself as a variety store of issues (by including voting and civil rights perspectives), when it is a specialty store. To deny that women are special and unique, and thus so are their specific issues, is disrespectful. Being a tom-boy is fine, it has its place, and so does wearing pants have its merits for particular occasions... but an ERA- for women must take pride in itself for its own individuality. Stop trying to dress yourselves up as being something you're not. Be yourself and be happy with whom you are. This does not limit your potentials, but provides a firm base of who you are, where you are, and the direction you must go.
The Civil Rights Movement for Blacks, though it had/has wide-ranging ramifications on the Nation in its many diverse cultures and has led to the transformation of thought everywhere, was not, explicitly, a Civil Rights movement for Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, (nor extra-terrestrials, Big Foot, and other social "Fringe" entities... if one is permitted to interject a bit of humor). Conversely, the "Million Man March" by Black men was solely intentioned for Black Men, though it had ramifications in the thinking of other races as well. Similarly, an Equal Rights Amendment for Women is not an automatic guarantee for Equal Voting Rights between the electorate and those so elected, though some ERA- for women proponents attempt to align their 'Cause' with the issue of voting and civil rights. The "electorate" refers to those in a country or territory who are entitled to vote in an election... and if they are established-by-law voters, may engage in a petition to promote the inclusion of a topic to be voted on in a general election. However, they are not customarily enabled to vote on all topics as a given practice of law development. A legislative body is given an unequal (unfair) distribution of voting power. In most cases, the public at large is removed from the equation for developing, discussing and voting on an idea to become the law of the land.
An Equal Rights Amendment (for women) is only one aspect of a much needed larger application of equality (for everyone), but it is a stand-alone issue and should receive the deserved respect as such. Those trying to append the idea of an enlarged Voting Right to the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment are like those who attempt to apply significance to their religious philosophy by combining it with the concepts of (a) god and morality. It is not readily understood that religion is a philosophy that attaches concepts and ceremony in an attempt to persuade others to follow and support its leadership. The present drive for an Equal Rights Amendment is trying to increase its significance by applying the concept of voting equality to itself, which may or may not be coupled with civil rights. The three are separate, but related considerations. To continue describing these two (or three) as being the same is intellectual dishonesty.
The views of Phyllis Schalfly have formed the basis for opposition to an Equal Rights Amendment. Yet, it too is a separate issue from an Equal Voting Rights Amendment.
It is surprising that neither proponents nor opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have supported the call for a National Referendum on the issue by way of joining forces to combine resources to promote an Equal Voting Rights Amendment that would provide an equalized means to settle the issue once and for all.
Both perspectives want to retain the present government controls to advantage themselves instead of advantaging the whole of the public in obtaining an enhanced right to vote collectively, and have the result become the law of the land. Both groups have an underlying bias against the collective public opinion by not striving for an Equal Voting Rights Amendment. Just because eligible voters are permitted to have the occasion to vote for a government official, does not mean they practice a voting equality. Present voting "allowances" are an exercise in sub-standard Democracy.
The idea of "Equal Rights" should be applied to "everyone", and the definition of "everyone" should be defined by all eligible voters who would likewise define voter eligibility. Such can not be accomplished by a handful of delegates set forth in traditionalized formulas of governance. However, there should not be an Equal Rights "Amendment"... in the sense that it will thereafter be viewed as an added-on after-thought. It should be the formulating essence of what makes up the beginning of a New Constitution, though inclusion as an Amendment in the present structure of government would be a step in this future document re-writing direction. An Equal Rights Amendment is now cast into a new framework involving the whole Nation revolving around an enhancement of public voting power— which will enable the entire citizenry to vote on establishing equal rights for women because public-absent government bodies do not have the experience, intelligence nor wisdom to effectively direct the course of a nation requiring the collective efforts of the entire population.
By protest, by petition, by a civil war, rebellion or Revolution... we are now directed towards establishing an enhancement of Equal Voting Rights for everyone. Though we will raise our banners with the intent of producing a peaceful resolution to our grievance, we are well aware that bureaucratic obstinance, arrogance, dismissiveness, deflection, disparagement and numerous other historically observable tactics of denial may force us to restate our requests for greater ceno-democratic equality.
~ ~ ~ A plutocratic aristocracy is a dysfunctional family with rivalries and dominance changing hands from time to time and place to place under different conditions favoring a particular business personality and ability. Looking for a specific lineage is sometimes difficult to identify and objectify as one might a particular person or family is a "blood relations" sense. An Aristocracy can take many forms and should not necessarily be associated with a traditional notions of nobility, since monetary wealth, political power, adopted religious observances, ethnic practices and numerous other orientations can become practiced aristocracies, organized "hierarchically" in any geometric configuration one might imagine, though simplistic hereditary assignments is a predominant concept amongst many thinkers. ~ ~ ~
Therefore, a Cenocracy is proclamation to
establish a sustained: