• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Neue Grundgezets fuer Deutschland, bitte tun Sie was gut fuer Sie ist.

Schoenen Tages,

(Ich bin von Die Niederlande (dort geboren und immer gelebt)
und meines Deutch is nicht gut, es tut mir leit.)

Ich habe eines neues Grundgezets fertig gemacht, deren einen
neuen Staat einhalt, und auch einer neuen oeconomisches Model.
Dass neuen Oeconomisches model ist basiert (ich gehe weiter
im English, tut mir leit ...) ... this new economic model
is based on the understanding that a primitive trade between
two productive persons is a protection for their labor. What
has gone wrong over time is that the conditions of society
changed and new forms of power-trading became possible: the
trade in land ownership (and even its possession against the
common good denying people land they needed and had a fair
share claim to), the for profit trade in money (which is most
profitable in companies with lowest costs and lowest labor
costs), and the trade in corporations by allowing external
ownership of whole groups of people.

The trade mechanism only properly functions when it is about
effert, when services or condensations of work (products) are
being traded. For example if some Baron owns 15 horizons of
land all around, and the 30.000 peasants living their own nothing
but need to eat, the Baron can "sell" or "rent" "his" land
to
the peasants. A fair sale ? No. An example of "power trading."
Did the Baron create that land ? No, he is not trading his
own effort. Is the Baron using force to extract money ? Yes, he
has payed troops from the land rent that will occupy the land
for him. There trade goes wrong. And when trade goes wrong, the
powerful party becomes rich without doing productive work. But
the money is more power, and so the conditions worsen for the
victims.

Something equally dangerous though different happens with money,
as briefly hinted above.

The constitution proposal is worked out quite well I think, in
laws but also with additional documentation.

The economic question is handled like so:
- The economy remains a free trade economy, with the freedom to
set prices, freedom to sell your services to any and all (ideally
without having to pay income taxation because I would like to at
least attempt to use a fixed yearly sum on each person to releave
the markets of all that paper work and make casual trade between
real people more common and much more easy and 100% routine -
"black work" would instantly become "white work"; the yearly sum
would of course be quite high if the government is doing a lot for
the common good that needs money. This is *not* part of the
constitution, but it gives the idea that the markets are really to
be free and even more free then they are now, except ...).
- Investment money will be socialized/nationalized into many funds,
that can be used for business upstarts.
- Land and natural resources are to be divided and everyone will get
an equal share. This is not like the ordinary ownership right.
You can use the resource yourselve, or you can rent it to someone
else. An important aspect of this is that the power over natural
resources lies with all the individuals individually, and only its
marginal governance remains under the public Government (things
like "you can't use you nice patch of German Land to dump toxic
chemicals.... and if you do there is a warm cell waiting for you
somewhere in the Reich ...).
- This one is very important too, because I think it will probably
make the decisive difference: business upstart is free and you can
run your business as you like, that is the same. But if you leave
your business and it has grown above 10 full time employees, these
employees become the group owners, their majority vote becomes the
owner. The starter now going away is compensated "fairly," that means
this is not a free market sale (because there is a designated buyer.)
The courts will typically have to handle this, unless an argeement
has been reached. The starter is also to get a share of future
profit, for nothing. That is a way of saying thanks, but it is also
a way of trying to give the starter the motive to share his abilities
and connections with the employees, so that the business may flourish
and the starter may profit through a higher and/or more lasting share
of future profit. It is therefore a good idea to have this share of
profit fluctuate with the actual profit of the company.

Then there are the familiar issues regarding infrastructure and "must
health care be public or private" and so on. Much of that would become
public in my view. The Constitution does not describe this per sector,
but uses a somewhat vague rule "where there is no competition possible"
and so on. The Government can decide all these things later, although
how to do it is quite precisely written a lot about in the supporting
documentation (why to have health insurance public for instance, and
why small health care practices can be private, and some ideas that
have worked and may work again for large hospitals and who owns what
and how it is governed etc.)

Okay ... so far the economy, then the big question: how to do the State.
How to do the government.

I thought it was better that representatives have close eye to eye
contact with the people, and not be far away pictures on a TV screen.
So, the old ideals of the communist revolution, the people's
representatives committee model ... but then hopefully in a way that
it would actually work (and not backfire).

Groups of people, 50 persons or more, group together in the street.
They just use the housenumbers as a starting point: 1-50, 51-100,
etc. From that groups are achieved, and the groups wiggle a bit and
form groups all about 50 to about 60 (some maybe a bit larger still).
Each selects an administrator, each administrator organizes an internal
vote for a representative. The representative can be anyone, it does
not have to be somewhere living in that part of the street. This
means that people who are thought of to be capable of being good
delegates, maybe people who have had a good education or who are known
to be trustworthy and good, or maybe older people with more experience
who may have a stabilizing effect on society, these can be elected
(anyone can be elected that is, but no children.)

These delegates form councils, they need to group with 50 or more
to do so. There are then some protocols to walk through, and if that
is done the council is the official local Government over a very
small area (a few thousand people). This government is the same type
of function as we now have with our Governments. They only make
political decisions, they do not own homes or businesses, and these
people have no power over other people either ! The "voter groups"
(the people in the street) have the power over their delegate.
They can change the delegate any moment. This is all prepared in laws
already. So: the council may decide in majority "we will cut down this
big old tree on the crossing because it is dangerous now." Then the
delegates of course need to publish their decision, and of course
everyone has the right to pass that decision to other people "the
council decided so and so." But the delegates can not force other
people to comply, they can not pick up weapons and march to the
greenery services and force these people to cut down the tree. When
the decision is not honored, they like everyone else can sue in court.
They can say to the court "we made a decision and we have this power,
but the greenery services reject to do anything, now what ?" If the
court agrees, then the police may step in and they can force it.
Most likely the council will try to fire the resisting greenery
services and most likely the greenery services won't even think about
not following the council decision (unless it was really really bad, in
which case they might drag their feet waiting on a repeal maybe). This
is the way things are now. So there is Government, police and justice,
this is also all described in the laws already. Courts, appeal courts
and supreme court, all described already.

These delegates can then again group in groups of 50, again selecting
a representative for themselves, and this can form the governments
over the larger groups of people in the same way: city, area, and
national. The national government would be just that group of 50
persons.

Besides this there is Referendum law for all decisions: get 10%
signatures then you get a referendum, the non-votes are voted by
the representatives. The outcome is binding. How it is precisely:
see the laws, it is all a long story (i'm trying to be very brief
here, but it is a lot of stuff all, two or three books full maybe).

There is a lot more to it then this. For example the head of state
and the electoral committee and its role, the size of the nation
and how to break away to form new nations ...

*

What brought me here is the last law of the German Grundgesetz,
which fits so wonderfully perfectly with my proposal:

Art 146 GG [Geltung und Geltungsdauer des Grundgesetzes]

Dieses Grunggesetz, das nach Vollendung der Einheit und Freiheit
Deutschlands für das gesamte deutsche Volk gilt, verliert seine
Gültigkeit an dem Tage, an dem eine Verfassung in Kraft tritt,
die von dem deutschen Volke in freier Entschouding beslschlossen ist.

First law of proposed Constitution (which has a total of 239 laws,
divided into 9 functional chapters):

Chapter 1: Structure of Constitution
Articles 1.1: Power of the Constitution
_1.1.a Power
The constitution has no value outside the support of the People.


Doesn't that fit together perfectly ?

Also the very first sentence of the Grundgesetz says:

Praämbel

Im Bewußtsein seiner Verantwortung vor Gott und den Menschen,
von dem Willen beseelt, ...

You have mentioned "Gott," und you meant the "Gott" of the Torah.
This means you may have a legal obligation to at least look at
my proposal, which is nothing more then a proposal. All I'm asking
you is to considder it. In order to considder it, you have to
understand it. So i'm asking you: please understand it. If you then
reject it as bad, wrong or impractical: that's your free choice
(of course). You can also only do some parts, even without altering
the Grundgesetz. This may be possible because of Article 104 b.
For example you could pass through only certain parts, like an
improved Referendum law and a socialized/nationalized finanz
wesen. Bitte. Bitte. Lieber Deutschen brüder volkes.

*

The way to achieve these aims is also extensively discussed, using
the available means of purchase, investment, the vote and party
formation, and also using the hard power of revolution but that
won't be necessary if the voting system is functioning.

Please, start up some DAVID sister parties in Deutschland, so we
can slowly but steadily work toward these aims, in good order.

(Although I wrote in English, i am not American on English; I'm
Dutch, never even been to the USA. My family is all Dutch too,
some descended from wandering German farm labor, fwik. I say that
because you just can't talk to americans about politics and systems
in my experience, so if you have that experience as well: please
don't misidentify me with them and therefore not even bother to
considder my proposal for Deutschland, thank you.)

I also wrote a computer program for Internet democratic voting,
which is quite a big program (25.000 lines of code), it worked,
it was published about in Linux Magazine (a German periodical).
This should prove i am not a complete idiot maybe, maybe a reason
to considder the proposal. Why should the writers of the German
Grundgesetz have done a better job then me ? I think it is clear
they have done a poorer job, because the economic model is wrong:
it does not work properly that way, it is unstable and not good
for all people, in particular not for those doing the work.

veel groeten,
jos boersema
Groningen, Die Niederlande
--
http://www.jhwh.be
http://www.socialism.nl (*not* plan economy, *not* marxist, but also
*not* capitalist or Smidthist, something else, in between and both,
but above all scientific and rational and precise.)

Antworten