As was noted in the Solving Social Problems article, the author highlighted the recognition that not all people got ill, died or even suffered during a plague. Some people might have even prospered because of it, just like those who advantaged themselves by encouraging a populace to interpret another's actions as being that of black magic... in terms of being a witch or in league with the devil, whereby they took possession of their property— which may have included all livestock, children and their mother... to be treated as indentured servants.
With the foregoing as a sort of preamble to this present discourse, let us affirm that there are those that do well in one social setting though others around them are not. While Monarchies of the past created much harm for some, others did well. The same is true for dictatorships, Communisms, Socialisms, Theocracies, Democracies, etc... All of them represent different social game plans that were adopted because they appeared to present the public with the idea that the people would best be served by such a formula... despite whether or not the people actually voted their respective government into usage. However, it is seldom brought to the attention of the public that such game plans are based on a "popularity contest" standard.
Even though such an idea is well recognized by analysts, these same analysts do not take the time to reconcile this acknowledgment with the need to pursue a social governing formula which moves society away from this type of formalized superficiality that has, for some, its earliest of uses in the public school system. In America, such school systems rely upon popularity mechanisms of selection for class president and cheer leading positions. Instead of permitting different students to be cheer leaders for different sports, the same ones are used, and, in any case, the system of choice is encouraged to be that which expects students to select candidates by way of popularity. This behavior, during these formative years, becomes the standard by which later public figures are selected for office. While some citizens do use more intensive selection criteria, many candidates are selected because their name is most familiar, (i.e. popular). Generally speaking, most people who run for a particular office will function as an office manager, and they will do relatively well because they want to do well. There are, of course, exceptions.
The U.S. Presidency also is an office manager position. So are Congressional and Judicial positions. They are not manual labor positions, even though a candidate may try to impress upon the public that they are like the average working person, with "average" often described as someone in a labor position. Nonetheless, the selection process is one which relies heavily on the formula of a popularity contest because that is how the governing system is set up to foster and practice. A Cenocratic formula is the beginning of a transition away from this practice of superficiality. It will no doubt be subjected to those who want to retain a popularity selection system because they have learned how to do well within its formulaic requirements. It is a system which they know how to work to advantage their perspective through various machinations, manipulations and if necessary, mischievous malfeasance.
Cenocracy is a new social governance game plan. It's initially applied introduction is one of transitioning the public away from the present Democracy with its varying elements of Plutocracy, Socialism, Communism, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, etc., all of which are practiced in varying amounts in varying places. For example, classrooms are not run on a basis of Democracy. Neither are most work- places or households. Children do not get to select the parents they want, or parents the children they want, just like teachers don't necessarily get to choose which students they want to teach; and the selection of teachers by students, is fraught with conditions of popularity, deadline selection, limited options... and the like. Instead of the practice of what might define as a Democracy... to have a freedom of choice, such a freedom does not prevent the adoption of limited options based on a school administration's usage of their own non-democratic criteria. Hence, there is no "pure" Democracy. Present Democracies are amalgamations of various social governing practices and those systems regularly depend on the usage of a popularity contest of selectivity. Analogously, you could be presented with choosing between twelve candidates who each have identical qualifications, identical experiences and performed previous duties in the same above standard way... and you have the same qualities that they do... whereby your selection may be primarily based on the popularity of their personality or that you think or have a "gut instinct" or have prayed about which candidate would be best.
Whatever criteria you would use to select a candidate, the governing process of selectivity is one which encourages a selection primarily based on some measurement value of popularity. You can not be expected to do otherwise because this is what you have been taught and this is the way the overall system is set up. Very often, this system of popularity selection is contoured to advantage one person over another by way of utilizing a tool called money. The more money one has to spend on one's public visibility, the more one increases the odds of being remembered when someone decides who to pick, even though they may know very little about the candidate. Yet, candidates don't actually want you to know them too well. Getting to know a candidate too closely can have a negative effect on their candidacy. Thus, they want to minimize the ability of the public to make a truly informed decision by not providing the public with too much detailed information. Another tool used by a governing process of candidate selectivity is to set up a means to further minimize a public's ability to control their collective choice by swaying popularity into a niche whereby the actions of the candidate in respective locations affords them with a larger exposure, thereby gaining a maximization of votes. In America, in terms of selecting a President, the laughable usage of an Electoral College provision is a blatant form of anti-democracy that candidates learn how to use as a tool in order to contour the public's choice along their own game-plan route.
The various types of Democratic systems practiced in the world are not based on a fairness in equality... and various peoples learn to live within the respective criteria they were born into. Only when those systems prove to produce more recurring social problems do the people begin to think about changing the system... after a long process of relying on an inefficient candidate selection process which yields more of the same problems... no matter who is placed into office. It does not matter who takes over what office if the system in which they must work requires them to adopt workplace strategies similar to their forebearers. While some candidates learn how to minimize the recurrence or harshness of a given social problem... if not merely reducing the effects on those who are most vocal, they are unable to effectively get rid of a problem if the problem is a system of a larger issue that occurs as a result of the type of social governing architecture. While the design may have been suitable for an earlier type and quantity of population, it can later become recognized as being rather primitive. Analogously, for example, while tipis (tepees, teepees) were once particularly useful for a given Native American population in the past, their present day counter-parts would not readily want to return to a usage of them... despite the occasional sentiments of nostalgic reflection.
The game plan of present day peoples has changed from that which their forebearers used. Sometimes by way of gradual accommodation, at other times by way of necessity due to disease, war, or resources, and at other times by way of protest that not always required the usage of a Revolution. A change in the social governance game plan invariably leads to changes in the way businesses are conducted. As such, the proposed adoption of a Cenocracy will undoubtedly be met with opposition from those in the business of using current social conditions made possible by the practiced government, to effect a maximization of profits. Even if the adoption of a Cenocracy does not effect the need for altering a businesses' strategy, the authority of the business may be fearful of the possibility anyway because they, like so many others, are made uncomfortable with the unexpected unfamiliar. If it were an expected unfamiliarity such as might be experienced by venturing into a forest as a vacation away from their urban dwelling, it can well be viewed as an adventure. Thus, this is a task presented to those wanting to adopt a Cenocracy. We have got to make its unfamiliarity more familiar, and present it in terms that it will be a welcomed unfamiliarity to experience like a long- deserved move to a better way of life.
Yet, some people will be unhappy with a change in the governing game plan because they like being unhappy. They are so used to being a crabby person that they insist on retaining that which permits them to sustain a familiar reflection of themselves. You can provide some people with the keys to the city and they would melt them down to be used to make something more familiar instead of appreciating them as a means of unlocking more resplendent, tangible as well as utilitarian potentialities. In fact, some will kick and scream with various types of displayed tantrum at the proposal of making a change, with an increased vigor thereof the closer we come to the realty of an actual adoption. Businesses frequently become an opposition to changes in governance, even when a change is sorely needed. Take for example the case of Child Labor. Businesses opposed legislative changes which curtailed their ability to use children as cheap labor. The delay in the adoption of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 was due to the influence of businesses wanting to be provided with behind the scene concessions. It afforded some businesses the opportunity to capitalize, for as long as the could, on a maximization of profits despite the atrocious working conditions children were subjected to. This mentality has not changed. Only the circumstances and the people involved.
The typical strategy for a business is to get all that it can for as little as it can by taking advantage of every minuscule legal provision that they can... no matter who gets hurt. Frequency of occurrence is not to be equated with natural, normal and thus also right. The Fair Labor Act had to be followed by a Constitutional amendment in 1961 because it was not respected. And even today, some adults still try to exploit the labor of children through adoption... like using them as live-in babysitters or domestic servants... not to mention the similar case of some adults exploiting other adults for various personalized interests... yet there is no anti-exploitation Act or amendment just as there is not anti-government agency predation law to prevent the government from using its position to practice their own versions of anti-trust by way of perpetrating confidence scams. The public does not have laws that it needs because the business-controlled Congress denies the public an equality of justice.
It is not that profit is bad, because it is a good thing. Profits enable many great and wonderful things to come about when they are used constructively. It is not the profits which are bad, it is the means by which some profits are made that is egregiously bad for people. And the people themselves attempt to practice similar methods of exploiting their fellow public members because it is the standard business role model they see being practiced. It is a model that likewise becomes practiced by government agencies... all under the contrivance of some process and procedure that they wrangle and finagle with some logistically aligned presumption of legality that the public has no means of effecting the actual redress of their grievance because such a standard of contrived legality is accepted as being permissible by all government agencies who practice their own versions of legalized contrivances. To say this activity is natural and has been occurring since time immemorial is not a justification for the usage thereof, but a confession that the same type of underlying system has been used because of a slow maturational development in the mindset of humans.
The present social mindset is to practice a social governing system which encourages the usage of a political candidate selection process by way of a popularity contest that discourages a person from saying what is on their mind. The ridiculous practice of some contrived social discourse observance labeled "political correctness" becomes an accepted substitute for allowing the public to have its own voice that is meshed into some 'vocabulated' stew which advantages one perspective over another. The idea of a "political correctness" is an actualized monstrosity of an articulated means of controlling social ideology to suit the inclinations of those in a position to advantage themselves by controlling espoused ideas through a means that minimizes language expressions in social discourse. By stunting public expressions in accord with a desired script, like an employee placed into a call-in customer service center that must vocally mimic the dictates of some authoritative figure, the public does not get to practice the development of individual ideas... just like its so-called right -to- vote is scripted by the voting procedure process.
The present governing systems of the world do not actively engage in a means to encourage free thinking. They all want thinking to mimic the adopted logic of those wanting to maintain a system in which they have learned to take advantage of. They do not want change. For example, the American Medical and Dental Associations in America do not want the public to accept the adoption of a National Health Care system because this would wrest control of their ability to maintain a monopoly on delving out medical care at whatever cost they want. There are no legislated cost controls for medical care. While Insurance companies do attempt to exert some influence on health-care costs, such efforts are minimal and become subverted by a realignment of costs by way of the language used for a given procedure that becomes used as a common addition to other tests... and validated as being needed and useful by the very medical community in which it serves to benefit. They are no laws which prevent the usage of loopholes, whether or not a particular loophole is discovered prior to the establishment of a law. The public simply needs an amendment which denies the uses of loopholes in any way, any fashion, for anything. Exceptions thereto would have to be publicly addressed and widely recognized as being beneficial to the public in actuality, and not merely philosophically termed as such while being of benefit only to a select few at the expense of others.
Businesses rightly broke the backs of Unions when Unions began to develop the attitude for wielding their membership to serve interests than what they were initially set up to do. Yet, Unions did a great service to the working man and woman. Unions helped to establish better working conditions and set an observed standard of the work day and work week in terms of duration... though businesses frequently, in the absence of Unions, force employees to work overtime or undertime. And despite the inclination of some reader wanting to mount a defense for a businesses' justifiable right to enforce an employee to work "extended" hours to meet some production demand, the stated observation is not one made without a realization thereof. We must be fair in our analysis, however superficial it may be for some, that both businesses and Unions have produced both good and bad workplace circumstances. However, these circumstances can become manifested into worse (or better) conditions by way of needed or meddlesome legislation. Law makers do not always do what is best either for businesses or the public. Yet, the accepted standard of a Federal level of an expressed "Checks and Balances" provision does not exist with respect to permitting the public to play a direct, participatory role. The present role of the public is more of an auxiliary cheer-leading or spectator capacity, even though a few acquire a more presumed "professional" position akin to some representative attend-to-the-team duty, if not some assumed officiating or "official" sponsorship, game reporter, stadium attendant, etc...
Look at the history of most sports, and you will be able to identify changes in the game. Be it in game strategy, uniform, rules, player recruitment, field layout, seating arrangements, attendance costs, or otherwise, there are changes to be realized. This is not to say that all changes are welcomed, but they nonetheless occur and become accepted as the standard as the old generations pass away and newer ones come to unfold as the main practitioners of interest. Such is true for social governing forms of gaming as well. And let it be noted that the word "gaming", though most often related to gambling, can be used to identify both the idea of seriousness and games of chance. Both interpretations can be applied to social governing programs. While some people stand at a voting booth as if it were a one-armed bandit at a gambling casino because their choices amount to the usage of a "take a chance" selectivity, others use a more determined methodology of presumed logic and comprehensive understanding of issues and candidates as their algorithm for making a selection. While some are so dissatisfied with the present government and its "obviously rigged" or "it doesn't matter" right-to-vote system of falsified Democracy that turns them away from voting altogether; others take the circumstances in stride and simply continue participating based on the notion that voting is just another model of a lottery system... a lottery system that can function like the Social Security System which has evolved into a Ponzi scheme.
For those unfamiliar with the idea of the Social Security System being interpreted as a Ponzi scheme, it helps them to know what is meant by a Ponzi scheme. Simply put, a product or idea is re-sold multiple times as a good thing, and the funds for each reselling are used as profits by those, in turn, who invested, through a similar purchase, in the product or idea before those who did the same afterwards. While this explanatory version may seem rather confusing to some, perhaps a more direct application would be of greater value. As such, those who first paid into the social security system have their funds paid to them through the funds collected by younger workers. Though the initial idea of the Social Security System was to be that in which a worker received only those funds which they had contributed, the long life expectancy for more and more retirees was not part of the initial logic of calculation. In other words, we have lots of people living longer than the amount of money they contributed, would cover as a needed subsistence. So instead of cutting the elderly generation off, which would produce other social problems, Social Security Benefits are continued, even though the person's workplace contributions have been exhausted. Now couple this financial strain on the System by the added burden of supplying a monetary benefit to surviving children, and we have a more developed complex system of philosophical altruism being applied. With more money being doled out due to longer life spans and less money being taken in due to a lack of employment, it's easy to see in this simplistic over-view why the Social Security System has a problem of dire proportions. In short, and analogously put, it is a game play that needs to be altered within a changed strategy of the larger social governing game model.
With this pointed out, let it be reinvested with a repetition that is not meant as a Ponzi scheme: Some social problems are not the game, but merely an inning, a down, an interval within an overall game structure. And, it should be noted, if it is not already understood, that the word "game" is meant as a metaphor with which to maximize understanding in simple, everyday (or at least seasonably) identifiable terms, and not as an intent to disparage a process that many of us grumble about because we have in one way or another become invested in it and want it to reflect our desire for something better. Yes, many of us grumble about social conditions but would not necessarily want to alter our social system to that of a dictatorship or Monarchy. We grumble because we are dissatisfied and want something that does not contribute to so many social problems. Thus, we not only seek out changes, but the rationale to adopt a particular frame of mind. Though people sometimes are reluctant to change, even if the change is better for them, they either need to be individually convinced, or rely on their herd mentality to follow others whom they are convinced will not lead them astray.
But it can sometimes be difficult to accomplish this when they have been recurringly subjected to those whose ideas are linked with acquiring some personal benefit. And yet, because people are so used to this behavior, any idea which is offered by someone(s) who are not seeking a personal benefit such as being elected to a political office, can make a few even more wary of not only the person, but the idea. They want to know what the catch is. In their accustomed logic, nothin' ain't free and there is always some catch like the small print frequently used by the legal departments of businesses wanting to protect themselves from a potential legal suit, but also do not want to present their clauses of self-protection in such a way as to make consumers suspicious of some hidden agenda meant as a subterfuge. No business that wants to remain in business will conduct an outright scam. Only those using a business as a tax right-off or nefarious-activity-concealment do so. Granted that it sometimes is difficult to make a distinction.
To offer an idea for a change in the present social governance game plan without any of its advocates seeking a political position, necessarily brings some to wonder "what's the catch"? Even though the effort of Cenocrats to get another form of social governance practice adopted is easily understood by those who, like themselves are altruistically motivated, others remain suspicious that there is some underlying motive because they themselves practice such an approach towards securing and maintaining a well-being for themselves. They will take time to look not only at the idea but those who are advocating its adoption. This is why many Cenocrats have resorted to adopting the name of "We The Public", or "Cenocratic" or some other similar characteristic as a means of disavowing any interest in using the Cenocratic Movement as a tool or stepping stone for personal aggrandizement. Cenocrats come from all walks of life and will return to different walks of life after the adoption of a Cenocracy, with the added advantage of having acquired a Redistribution of socio-political power in which individualized voices can have a collective means of directing the course of a nation as an enhanced Checks and Balances provision involving the very people for whom a social system of governance is supposed to benefit.
The adopted usage of a new social governing game plan can come by way of legislative adoption and need not be forged into an imposing banner by way of a consensus of public opinion exercised along the path of protest. However, it should be acknowledged that such a consensus of opinion does not mean the majority of a given people will actively participate in a protest rally or protest march. Most acts of overthrowing a government are occasioned by an overall small percentage-able minority whose own actions are not protested against... and believe their interest in overthrowing a particular government to effect a better one is largely accepted. The staging of an intended Revolution is like the occurrence of a sporting event with both advocates and dissenters cheering or jeering from some observational position. But not everyone is in the stadium. There are still many others who have no interest in either the loser or winner, one way or another, and can not imagine any personal benefit to be gained... or lost. It is an attitude many would be voting participants take when it comes to an election. A change in those holding an authoritative position has little, if any direct effect on most peoples lives because most candidates, regardless of who they are, will perform the requirements of a desired office reasonably well; since the obligatory abilities of most positions have little more than the need of someone with mediocre office management experience... and do not entail a great need for someone with much creativity, originality of thought, or genius... though some might want to argue otherwise based on some particularly unique criteria not mentioned in the present generalized account.
Cenocracy offers a new game plan, a new strategy for doing the business of government. As a Revolution, its adopted course will release an existing but not fully acknowledged or realized repository of public energy with the capacity to hurl the nation into a new era of applied philosophical adventurism in the human endeavor to embark on unrealized paths or regain the footing necessary to more appropriately explore some forgotten trail or misplaced mile marker previously used as a signpost. Music, science and space exploration will all be affected through reinvention. Education, industry and medical treatment will be reinvested with new standards. And our relationship with religious ideation will be reinterpreted into those consolidations best suited for the threshold of a future in the making of a vision just beginning to open its eyes and smile at warming light of a new dawn. The rooster is crowing, let us heed its call.