Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Class Action Democracy Banner (45K)


The problem is that American government is now increasingly responsive to special interests and not the public interest. This is why many people are frustrated and disappointed with our political system. Instead of a democracy where all citizens have an equal say in the governing process, some organizations and individuals have a disproportionate and unfair influence over what the government does. The result is that the power and greed of the few too often win out over the needs of the many. (Douglas J. Amy: What is Really Wrong with Government)


A class action, class suit, or representative action is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

Wikipedia: Class Action

A Class Action Democracy By Way of a Cenocracy

Because the public is the largest "consumer" of government, and that no one person can actually Represent everyone, and neither can a select few by way of some idealized proportionism; the people need to have a "Class Action Democracy" with which it can collectively Represent itself, and the collective Will become the law of the land. Whereas Class Action lawsuits allow harmed individuals to band together and more effectively seek justice; the people need an established Class Action type of Democracy which permits the public to collectively represent itself in any and all government activities. Such a means is being promoted by the call for a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic (Peoples Legislative Branch) Formula.

The usage of the word "class" should be a heads-up for Sociologists and Political Scientists, even though some think the usage of the word "Scientists" is akin to the usage of the word in the phrase "Church of Scientology". Pejoratives notwithstanding the present context, the usage of the word "class" to distinguish the public as a whole, is similar to its usage in the distant past when ruling members of society viewed themselves as a separate, more important and privileged class. It was a mindset that relied heavily on the usage of dichotomy. The usage of lower, middle and upper classes when viewed as an intellectually exercise relying on trichotomy, are thus rendered into superficialities with little value than some antiquated tactic of dividing society so that social scientists might attempt some larger and deeper grasp of social functions. With the majority of the public lumped into a single "class", the mentality of those in authoritative product producing positions has reverted to the mindset so readily noted in texts of described history. In short, the whole of the public is being classed as a type of cannon fodder, with the word "cannon" being replaced with drug experimentation, medical procedure, economic, social program, etc...

A "Class Action Democracy" is sorely needed in America, Britain, China and elsewhere. The people the world over are in desperate need of a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic formula.

The "Class" in the phrase 'class action lawsuit' denotes that the largest segment of society is rendered an ineligible voter status, like Women, Blacks, non-property owning Whites, Slaves and Native Americans, as well as those males not having reached an established age of majority (or believed in maturity). The overall public is not permitted to vote on any and all issues they would want to. They are subjected to an antiquated notion of one's "betters" that was prevalently observed in the past. Let us look at a description of the American colonial mentality with respect to voting rights, and keep in mind that this perspective is rampant today, though it is cloaked under the garment of "voting rights" which promotes the illusion of being able to vote because of a so-called established Democracy, but actually denies a full expression thereof... and yet we praise the Founding Fathers for setting up such a hypocritical system:

Voting in Early America

At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise:

  1. Women will demand the vote;
  2. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to;
  3. And every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state.

It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

Colonial Voting restrictions reflected eighteenth-century English notions about gender, race, prudence, and financial success, as well as vested interest. Arguments for a white, male-only electorate focused on what the men of the era conceived of as the delicate nature of women and their inability to deal with the coarse realities of politics, as well as convictions about race and religion. African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews. In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.

Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.

Colonial Williamsburg Journal logo (6K)

Generally speaking, some people think that a true "Peoples Government", where an Actual Democracy was practiced, there would be chaos. This is the sentiment held by those of the 1700's who think that a few people elected to office, are an adequate Representation of all ideas. Common ideas perhaps, but surely not creative nor original ideas. Whereas the notions of Democracy are now considered common knowledge, even though the notions are not widely defined in the same manner; the idea of a Democracy was once a creative, an original conception. Someone that was not of the "common stock", who did not share in the so-called common sense, had to coin the word, while others may have contributed to a clearer distinction of an idea in its pristine moments of development. Hence, the point to be made is that the so-called proportioned form of Representation does not provide a provision for those who think creatively, originally, and on the genius level, though the American Government has been referred to as the "Genius of the People".

The current form of Democracy is a sham. It severely limits the access of the majority to fully participate in the legislation and developmental vote of laws. The fears of instituting a "Class Action Democracy" by way of a Cenocracy are those who either fear a loss of their current control, or those who are afraid of anything new, regardless of context. A Class Action Democracy is a virgin wilderness that Americans should be the first to forge ahead into with its own unique vision. Though individual trail blazers exist in different places on the Earth, in different subject areas, the task for establishing such a Cenocracy should be participated in by the entire nation, as the dedicated role of a world leader.

And yet, though many of us see the mentality of Colonial America as a type of Irrationality we would not want to participate in, we of today are experiencing our own Age of Irrationality because of the severe limitations placed on our Right to vote on various social topics of public concern. This situation is increase to manifold proportions when it is coupled with the repressiveness being doled out by many of those sitting on judicial benches... who want to strip the means by which the public has in dealing with those who want to do away with government rules and regulations, just so they can effect to take advantage of the people.

For some of us, it's like having traveled back in time to an early era of nonsense, where incredibly stingy voting rights were accepted as being just as logical as limited voting Rights of today. Imagining oneself walking amongst those who viewed such antiquated voting limitations as just, if not natural; is easily accomplished by comparing such a mentality to that which is held as appropriate today with respect to voting rights and social issues. Whereas the people look normal, and dress normal according to the clothing standards of the era, and may even be esteemed as an expert in one field or another, if not respected for a given intelligence; their collective muted deference to the stupidity of voting observances of today bespeaks of a deep-seated ignorance. No doubt that if someone in the future ventured to our present time, they might well keep their distance for fear of being labeled as an "outsider" because they don't share in the prevailing types of accepted irrational thinking. Indeed, some of us are better suited to live in the future just like on some occasions we might encounter a person whose behavior (and mentality) seems better suited, more adept for the accepted social currents of a past age.

It's like looking into the eyes of a domesticated beast of burden who can utter familiar vocal sounds, have an interest in the same foods, and yet we are unable to see any semblance of a type of humanity to be desired... unless it is to be pitied, because no matter how diligently one tries to free them of the fetters used by the current models of falsified Democracy: some are oblivious to the needed comprehension, others are fearful of removing themselves from the familiarity of their life routines, and still others want simply to engage in another illusion by substituting the present shackles with another form of uniform enslavement... name badges and all. And example of this is the delusion that electing one person over another to fill an authoritative position, there will be lasting change... and yet the underlying structure of governance places limitations on how much progress can be made. If it can't be made to fit in the current governing scheme, then it must be a wrong design, a wrong idea... because the type of governance we practice with respect to its formalized schematic, is the best and only way to run a system... and to change it goes against an accepted and respected inviolable tradition. We are permitted to change the players, change the uniforms, change the names of positions and other incidentals, but not the game itself.

Nonetheless, some of us will fight for a Cenocracy... a New Government... a change in the game, even if many in the present do not fully comprehend what is being offered, they can nonetheless set the stage for their children and childrens' children to benefit therefrom.

Date of Origination and initial posting: Monday, October 5, 2015
Updated Posting (Image heading and other commentary added): Tuesday, October 6, 2015