Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[SteveUK]

I'd like to say I've enjoyed his posts, from both an entertaining view and an insight into how some people's minds work . And also credit for coming here to debate.

Good luck Psam, albeit you're spouting garbage.

[LordEd]

The fact that I work 40 hours a week, pay rent, and buy food for more than just Me is not relevant to this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Sure it is. You are claiming that you are outside of the governance by choice. The fact to whether you are receiving benefits of that governance is pivotal. It also raises the question whether your system is even feasible for the average employed worker to be able to function in society while under your regime, or if every waking hour must be dedicated to voting.

Part 1:
Do you work in exchange for money? (This is a yes or no question)

If so, have you notified your employer that you are not under Canadian governing and are as such exempt from benefits such as Employment insurance, pension, and any employment standards set out by the government (this is a yes or no question)?

Part 2:
If not, do you receive benefit in the form of pension, old age security, welfare, unemployment insurance, disability, GST refunds, child care benefits, or any other program where a form of payment from the government is sent your way? (this is a yes or no question)

And, if so, have you notified these services that you are not under Canadian governing and as such should be removed from such payments? (this is a yes or no question).

[Psam]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ke-protest

[bmxninja357]

so you believe yourself a suffragette? what an odd theory. i think you may want the full keith thompson kate of gaia before thats believable....

ninj

[Hanslune]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ke-protest

So this how you are going to ignore the questions put to you above?

I don't think that is going to work.

[LordEd]

Nothing unusual. All practical questions about membership or current application of this system have been ignored.

[grixit]

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. He wants to be thought of as the kind of person who would actually starve himself. Then he will allow himself to be persuaded not to, by people who will thereafter be committed to his cause. It's not all that different from the political move of claiming to only be running for office because so many people insisted.

[Philistine]

edited. nvm

[The Observer]

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. He wants to be thought of as the kind of person who would actually starve himself. Then he will allow himself to be persuaded not to, by people who will thereafter be committed to his cause.

Will they do that before or after they bring him the free food?

[noblepa]

<Duplicate post deleted>

[noblepa]

Is it cowardly for an employer to wish to retain the discretion to terminate the employment of an employee who is not doing their job properly in a time period less than four years?

The thing is: you're not the employer. You're one of 35+ million employers. You want to fire someone in Politics? You can not do so on your own, it requires a vote.

You want to change the rules to be able to "fire someone by consensus" sooner? So be it, go through the appropriate political campaign to get that change. If there are enough of the 35+ million employers who feel as you do, then no one will be able to stop that change.

A citizen participates in the selection as to who to hire with their vote in an election. A citizen pays their employee through their taxes. An elected representative is an employee of the citizens.

And yet, at the same time you - the citizen - are powerless to act alone. This is the core understanding you need to achieve.

Is there any employer anywhere else in the work force that would be satisfied to be required by law to wait four years before being able to terminate the employment of an employee?

Ultimately, the owner that started the business gets to make the rules of their business so long as those rules conform with the Laws of Society. There's a big difference between a dictator (which pretty much describes a company) and a Democracy. You, the single individual, do not get to change the rules for the rest of us just because you feel like it no matter how much you want to be the dictator.

Being subject to the governance of an institution logically yields the right to have an equal, meaningful voice in determining how that government operates.

Let me be crystal clear on the employer/employee analogy:

I do NOT view myself as an actual employer of any of the public officials. You want to be a clear employer? Start a business and hire someone. While employer can be used as a rough analogy, it is not a direct definition comparison. There are BIG differences between a Citizen and an Employer. BIG differences between a company and a Government.

A citizen (voter) is more analogous to the stockholder of a corporation, than to the management. Very few corporations allow stockholders, even those with a very large stake, to fire individual employees.

Yes, there are some circumstances in which an employer is required to wait for a possibly extended period to fire an employee. It is called an employment contract. CEO's have them. Professional athletes have them. Entertainers have them. Such contracts often have clauses that permit immediate firing under certain limited circumstances, but often, if the employer wishes to rid themselves of the employee before the end of the contract, they must either continue to pay the employee or pay them in a lump sum.

Lastly, some jurisdictions have a recall procedure. That's how Arnold Schwarzeneger got to be Governor of California. His predecessor, Gray Davis, was booted from office by a vote of the people, and a new election was held, which Ahnold won. I don't know if Canada has recall procedures, either at the national or provincial level. In the US, they exist, if they exist at all, only at the state or local level. Many people have wished for the ability to recall congressmen/women, senators and even the President, but we don't have it.
And you do: convince enough of the rest of us that your change is for the better of Society and you'll add our voices to yours and get the change you want.

[Psam]

I've been asked why I've ignored some questions that have been put to Me by People who have ignored questions I have put to Them. I apologetically do not intend to indulge hypocrisy.

A citizen (voter) is more analogous to the stockholder of a corporation, than to the management. Very few corporations allow stockholders, even those with a very large stake, to fire individual employees.

I certainly find that the interactive electoral system provides voters a position that resembles the position of a stockholder more than a manager. Thank You for the help refining my analogies.

Yes, there are some circumstances in which an employer is required to wait for a possibly extended period to fire an employee. It is called an employment contract.

I don't know if You were reading several pages ago when I described a guaranteed term of office for an interactively elected public representative, noblepa, so I will reiterate. A guaranteed term of office is an agreed upon period of time that a representative holds their office after being exceeded in electoral support by another candidate. I have observed one month or three months being used for several interactively elected positions in some different forums, but I expect that six months might be a good period of time if this system were used, for instance, to choose the Governor of California.

- with an interactive electoral system, every voter has one vote which may be cast for any candidate at any time that the voter wishes, and changed to a different candidate at any time after that

- if you gain the leading number of votes, then you do not take that office until the above agreed upon period of time has elapsed, without another candidate exceeding you in electoral support during that time period

- if you hold office, and another candidate gains more votes than you on a particular date, then you retain your office for the duration of the guaranteed term; if you have not regained the lead by the end of that period, then you are replaced in the office by the challenger on the date that the guaranteed term of office elapses; if you regain the lead during that time period, then you hold the office until another candidate gains the lead again, at which point the full duration of the guaranteed term of office begins again

Another feature that has been used on occasion is that the guaranteed term of office can be terminated if at any point the challenger has double the number of votes as the incumbent.

convince enough of the rest of us that your change is for the better of Society and you'll add our voices to yours and get the change you want.

I appreciate open minds, receptivity to innovation, and supportiveness of sincere individual efforts. I find these to be values that contribute to the happiness of All People quite effectively. Thank You for your encouraging words.

[LordEd]

Up to you Psam. You're the one looking to gain support for a new system.

A very closed, secretive system as evidenced by your refusal to disclose simple statistics.

Oh, have you been punished today per s.12? Claiming your rights are being violated because there was no election today would be hypocrisy if you also didn't demand punishment so you could maintain your right to non cruel and unusual punishment.

[Hyrion]

I've been asked why I've ignored some questions that have been put to Me by People who have ignored questions I have put to Them.

Thanks for the good belly laugh. Not for the above sentence but following it with:

I apologetically do not intend to indulge hypocrisy.

I assume you refer to the questions surrounding membership into your club. Stats Can has all the statistics surrounding voting in the Canadian system. So it's not hypocrisy for you to choose not to provide stats covering a subject where such stats are normally publicly available. To offer up a quote:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

- with an interactive electoral system, every voter has one vote which may be cast for any candidate at any time that the voter wishes, and changed to a different candidate at any time after that

- if you gain the leading number of votes, then you do not take that office until the above agreed upon period of time has elapsed, without another candidate exceeding you in electoral support during that time period

I'm disappointed in you Psam. I thought you were standing up to protect everyone's Section 3 rights. And here you are offering up just an illusion that people can vote anytime they want and their votes matter.

But in reality, with that guaranteed time period in place, their votes really don't matter at-the-moment after all and there's still a time lapse in between actual voting impact points.

So the reality is that Psam doesn't like the current 4 year schedule and he really wants to move it to a 6 month schedule (as per his example). For shame Psam, seeking to impose a 6 month limitation on peoples rights to have an impact through voting..... even if it does replace the 4 year schedule - it's still a limitation on everyone's section 3 rights as you had previously expressed yourself.

[Psam]

Hey, if You think that the interactive electoral system would work better without the guaranteed term of office, then I'm delighted! I personally don't really believe it's necessary. It really depends upon how the system is introduced to an electorate. Its purpose is more to assuage the fears of dinosaurs who believe voters are predominantly a bunch of indecisive, ignorant idiots who can't be trusted to make up their own minds on their own time.

If the system were adopted by a referendum asking an electorate whether They prefer an interactive electoral system or a periodic electoral system, and the electorate chose overwhelmingly in favour of the interactive system, then I expect that there would be no need for a guaranteed term of office. However, if the electorate were 51% in favour of interactive and 49% in favour of periodic, then it is possible that the guaranteed term would help smooth out the introductory process while the initial electoral tallies were approaching stabilization. I don't believe it would take long for the guaranteed term to become an obsolete part of the process.

For shame Psam, seeking to impose a 6 month limitation on peoples rights to have an impact through voting

Not really, actually. Being told by the board of directors that You are employed by that You are not doing a satisfactory job and They are considering terminating your employment has an impact upon the work You do, even if the projected date of termination of your employment is 6 months away.

[arayder]

For shame Psam, seeking to impose a 6 month limitation on peoples rights to have an impact through voting

Not really, actually. Being told by the board of directors that You are employed by that You are not doing a satisfactory job and They are considering terminating your employment has an impact upon the work You do, even if the projected date of termination of your employment is 6 months away.

There you go again, Frank. . . .

[Psam]

Perhaps We have different ideas about how the word "democracy" is defined, but I don't believe that it is remiss to interpret the word by its etymological roots, "demos" for "people" and "kratos" for "rule". If democracy means that the People rule, then yes, politicians chosen in elections are hired by the People to do a job. Whatever other definition You go by I'd be happy to ascribe its own due merit.

Since "the supreme law of Canada", the Constitution, claims that the purpose of the rule of law is to maintain or improve freedom and democracy as its fundamental values, then I don't see how it is remiss to regard politicians as being employed by the electorate, who do after all pay their wages with their taxes.

This is another underlying reason that I believe the Supreme Court of Canada holds the protection of minorities as a constitutional value that it has the jurisdiction to uphold despite the Constitution not actually using the expression "protection of minorities" anywhere in its wording. Democracy does not literally mean "rule of the majority". It means "rule of the people". Not "most of the people with the exclusion of a few dissidents". Not "enough of the people that it's kind of obvious that that's the right decision".

So if the rule of the People is the fundamental objective of the rule of law in Canada, then regarding politicians as being under the employ of the electorate is not such a ludicrous idea. Sure, maybe it's never actually worked that way, but that, according to the Constitution, is the objective.

[arayder]

. . .excuse me, I nodded off, Frank. . .

I didn't see anything there that said you were on the board of directors that could fire the representatives everybody else elected. Come to think of it, there's nothing outside your head that says so.

Plus you had your day in court and you lost.

What it boils down to is that your idea, theory. . .whatever it is. . . has no basis in law or custom no matter how much you chew on the word roots.

[notorial dissent]

More to the point, it has NO basis in reality, and anyone who actually takes a look at it shakes their head and walks off trying not to make eye contact with you.

[LordEd]

Democracy does not literally mean "rule of the majority". It means "rule of the people". Not "most of the people with the exclusion of a few dissidents". Not "enough of the people that it's kind of obvious that that's the right decision".

It definitely doesn't mean the few dissidents who misinterpret the constitution can decide to rule themselves and ignore the rule of the majority without leaving the country and making their own.