Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[notorial dissent]

NO. ONE. CARES.

IT. IS. BS.

YOU. ARE. BORING.

[arayder]

The biggest problem with Psam's idea is that politicians will be less likely early in their terms of office to do something which is temporarily unpopular, but ultimately works for the common good and in the light of history turns out to be a good thing.

Here in the U.S. a nod is given to Psam's notion by restricting the terms of House members to two years while allowing Senators six year terms. Since revenue bills are required by the U.S. Constitution to start in the House it was thought that voters would be more likely to recall House member's last use of the people's money at the next election, it being more recent.

Likewise the Senate has been called the saucer into which the the hot legislation of the House is poured

It is thought that Thomas Jefferson coming home from France, called George Washington to account at the breakfast-table for having agreed to a second, and, as Jefferson thought, unnecessary legislative Chamber.

"Why," asked Washington, "did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer, before drinking?"

"To cool it," answered Jefferson, "my throat is not made of brass."

"Even so," rejoined Washington, "we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

I'm with George Washington, not Psam, on this one.

[notorial dissent]

Psam's biggest problem is Psam himself, and his two or three like minded wing nuts. They come off as what they are, unrealistic clowns and his current unworkable and unrealistic fantasy doesn't improve one jot with age. He doesn't like the current system, tough, convince the other 99.99999% of the population to change it or STFU.

Unsubtle hint for Psam's benefit, IT. ISN'T. GOING. TO. HAPPEN!!!!

The other thing I find even more offensive about Psam and his ilk is that they do not want to convince others to follow his lead, they want to force them. If Psam were actually sincere and honest in his beliefs, which he isn't, he would have tried to convince the rest of Canada to change to his silly system, instead he tried to have the courts force everyone to use it. This is how I know Psam is a liar and a fraud, on top of being a flat out loon.

[Dr. Caligari]

his silly system,

Don't you mean his psilly psystem?

[notorial dissent]

his silly system,

Don't you mean his psilly psystem?

That too, also.

[LordEd]

Psam's 'proven' system is in perfect equilibrium as evidenced by this post where his next closest opponent is 1 vote short of tying him.

http://issociety.org/the-previous-prime ... rinciples/

I remain a Secondary Collaborator, one vote behind Psam for the position of Prime Representative, and this how I wish it to stay.

In a real-world, people enter and leave the voting pool constantly through birth, death, and geographical relocation. In a real world, the ones hunting for the top seat don't say "don't vote for me, I like 2nd place".

However, it seems Psam is under attack for his hunger strike plan

V. ARGUMENTS
A. Cycle of Wellness (III.A)
(10) I believe that just by having intentions to conduct a hunger strike under the conditions that he has
stated, he causes the emotional wellness of other members to suffer.
B. Self-wellness (III.B)
(11) I find Psam’s emotional wellness to be a valid consideration in this matter but I do not believe that
it is a greater lawful priority than the emotional wellness of others in these circumstances.

The kicker is this one one though:

C. Sovereignty of the individual (III.C)
(12) I believe that Psam’s sovereignty is impeded by a restriction being placed upon his freedom to live
or cease to live his life as he pleases. However, I believe that his responsible sovereignty, as any other
member’s, is justified by having demonstrated willingness to take on certain responsibilities to other
human beings. His intentions indicate a possible lack of responsibility if those intentions are not
consistent with the principles he has agreed to uphold as a condition of being regarded as responsibly
sovereign. If he were to fail to adhere to any order of the panel assembled for this hearing, it would be a
demonstration that his assertion of his own sovereignty is fraudulent.

Will Psam accept the command of the panel? It seems to question whether he will in the case he doesn't like the results.

[notorial dissent]

Like any of that makes a twaddicum of sense.

[Chaos]

his silly system,

Don't you mean his psilly psystem?

are you mocking Pshammy Davis Jr.?

[LordEd]

If two from here joined his little club, Psam would be out of power.

Probably if all of quatloos joined, there'd be a full change of guard and some new interpretation of what is 'consistent' with core beliefs.

Alas, I fear poor Psam would not react well and might be evicted from his club in a panel 3-5 decision.

[Psam]

The biggest problem with Psam's idea is that politicians will be less likely early in their terms of office to do something which is temporarily unpopular, but ultimately works for the common good and in the light of history turns out to be a good thing.

This whole post, arayder, was brilliant. It appears as if You are able to treat even a person with whom You have the strongest difference of opinion with respect and courtesy. That's an admirable quality. Thank You.

I have been a voter for 25 years now. In that time, I have found that the excuse of making a "temporarily unpopular" decision is nearly always a tactic to conceal putting money in friends' pockets. So while I acknowledge the possibility that You have pointed out "the biggest problem" with my idea, I believe I have also pointed out the biggest problem to the idea created by Jefferson, Washington and their colleagues, endorsed by You.

Likewise the Senate has been called the saucer into which the the hot legislation of the House is poured

If Congress were elected using an interactive electoral system, and the Senate were elected to six year terms as they are now, wouldn't this achieve the same cooling off period for the legislation that comes out of the hot legislative house? Wouldn't this also mean that the hot legislation coming out of the House would be far more consistent with the genuine democratic wishes of the voters instead of the money of the lobby groups? Then while it cooled off in the Senate's saucer, wouldn't hot headed voters have time to reconsider the decisions they have made?

One further point is that the Interactive Sovereign Society has a senatorial type of facility in its legislative body. The Prime Representative is elected by the full membership, one vote per member, each of which can be cast for any candidate at any time and changed to a different candidate at any time after that. Any candidate with the same number of votes as the Prime Representative is called a Main Collaborator. Any candidate with one less vote than the Prime Representative is called a Secondary Collaborator. (Click http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/charter.pdf and go to page 3 and read the section called Representative Collaborators)

For a motion to carry through this legislative body, the Prime Representative and all Main Collaborators must unanimously agree to it. If one or more Secondary Collaborators disagree, then the decision is delayed for two months.

This has a distinctly senate-like effect upon the electorate in their collaborative decision making process. Loyalty is a deeply entrenched concept in People, and there has been evidence to suggest that this is a biological imperative sanctioned by our own evolution as a species. It plays a heavy role in inherently stabilizing the dynamics of an interactive electoral system.

When a Main Collaborator (let's call him "George") blocks a decision that the Prime Representative (hmm, that would be "Thomas" I think) wishes to carry, every voter whose vote is standing for George will tell several other voters why they support George in blocking that decision. Thomas can seek one extra vote to demote George to Secondary Collaborator, but then George can still block the decision for two months while looking for one more vote to become a Main Collaborator again. This will also demote any other Main Collaborators too, getting them all searching for that extra vote to retain their veto power. If Thomas tries to get a second vote ahead of George, then any other Main Collaborators will start making public warnings of unrestricted power for the leader, denouncing this step, unless of course Thomas has made an effort to get an extra vote for one or more other present Main Collaborators so that his accountability to the various voters supporting his fellow candidates is clearly demonstrated to retain those voters' trust. That will prevent them from trying to get their supported Main Collaborators from getting the lead and becoming Prime Representative. Those voters' Main Collaborators already have full veto power anyway, so what difference does it make?

The electorate decides how much of the senate effect should be applied to their legislative body by deciding how many Main Collaborators to elect. More Main Collaborators means a longer cooling off period for contested legislation, poured into a saucer: a sort of senate. Less Main Collaborators means more desire for expediency.

Canada's Senators are appointed for LIFE, not elected for six years. If the House of Commons were elected using an interactive electoral system, every single decision made would still require Senate approval. If the Senate is already there as an upper chamber of sober second thought, made of members appointed for life, then how exactly does the (far from proven) argument that an interactive electoral system is unstable and prone to rash decisions merit denying voters their fundamental democratic rights for four years at a time while Senators are paid generous salaries with absolutely no job description to be required to follow other than having allegiance to the Queen (something every citizen is already required anyway) and not breaking the law (something every citizen is already required anyway)? The saucer's already there, Man! It may as well get used! Having the House of Commons elected for a four year term of office is like taking the teapot and putting it in the freezer for ten minutes before pouring the legislation into a saucer that is supposed to at least leave it still warm before being drank.

[arayder]

A more simple approach in Psam's vane would be, as Ben Franklin recommended, that there be only one legislative branch with a short term.

The system Psam proposes runs the risk, I believe, of becoming little more than a disaster in which monied interests use the media to manipulate the public who in turn impetuously runs competent politicians out of office over a single vote.

We suffer from that sort of a thing here in the states now in which well funded interest groups jam the airwaves with propaganda. The saving grace is that terms are long enough for the public to cool down and for the representative to either explain the vote or for the vote to be proved wise.

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

[Dr. Caligari]

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.

[Hanslune]

A more simple approach in Psam's vane would be, as Ben Franklin recommended, that there be only one legislative branch with a short term.

The system Psam proposes runs the risk, I believe, of becoming little more than a disaster in which monied interests use the media to manipulate the public who in turn impetuously runs competent politicians out of office over a single vote.

We suffer from that sort of a thing here in the states now in which well funded interest groups jam the airwaves with propaganda. The saving grace is that terms are long enough for the public to cool down and for the representative to either explain the vote or for the vote to be proved wise.

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

This problem of 'over reaction in the short term' was demonstrated as a weakness of Greek direct democracy.

[notorial dissent]

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.

I think more to the point is that Psammy wanted to MAKE everyone do it his way whether they wanted to or not, by way of a court action, since the majority did not fall at his feet in open adoration and acceptance of his cockamamie idea. Since I would be one of the ones in theory voting to accept or reject it, rather than openly and honestly putting it to a vote to the public it would be foisted on. I therefore announce my vote of absolute and utter rejection and repudiation (of it) as an ill conceived, ill designed, and utterly cockamamie fantasm. Hardly the hallmarks of the benevolent democrat he shows.

[eric]

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

I think the best way to reply to Psam is to pick the closest example to his system that I can find and illustrate the shortcomings. In the province of Alberta where I live, for matters of local municipal government, the local citizenry have petition power to change bylaws, force investigations of local authorities, or force a bylaw to go to a referendum. Some of these actions can be triggered off by as few as 20% of the voters. It's intended as a check on unpopular actions by a town council.
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/ ... ectors.pdf
So what happens if this measure is used too often? I present to you the small town of Irricana, Alberta, roughly 1200 residents. Using this direct democracy approach roughly every six months has resulted in the following over the last three years:
1. they've gone through five Chief Administrative officers and are waiting on a sixth;
2. two law suits;
3. 2 direct investigations;
4. town employees threatening to resign en masse;
5. requests to dissolve the town and put it under direct control of the county;
6. nobody wants to take on any position of responsibility since they are afraid of being hounded out of office, even for a volunteer position. eg helping out at the local library.
Basicly the town has become, for all intents and purposes, ungovernable. As a personal note, in my own small village, over the past 15 years we've used a petition once and that was to roll back a bylaw that would involve a tax increase for 30 or so residents that we thought was unnecessary.

[arayder]

I think Psam has completely ignored the possibility that this woeful situation would become a full blown disaster if his idea was adopted.

Whether it would be a good idea or not is neither here nor there-- it is NOT the law, and Psam has no right to ignore legally-enacted laws just because his pet scheme has not been adopted. That's what this thread is about.

I agree.

Psam's only avenue at this point is political action seeking to change the law, not claiming rights he, or no one else has.

If the core problem he seeks to address is unresponsive and unaccountable elected officials then Psam's got a lot of potential allies. The challenge would be that the allies might well advocate doable solutions like laws which facilitate impeachments and or recall elections.

[notorial dissent]

Psam's only avenue at this point is political action seeking to change the law, not claiming rights he, or no one else has.

If the core problem he seeks to address is unresponsive and unaccountable elected officials then Psam's got a lot of potential allies. The challenge would be that the allies might well advocate doable solutions like laws which facilitate impeachments and or recall elections.

Which is precisely my point, and he won't try that route since he knows it will fail overwhelmingly.

I didn't, and don't think his interests are in improving government or dealing with the issues you mention, I think it is one soley of ego and hubris alone, and of his idea being "right".

[Psam]

https://www.facebook.com/psamuel.frank/ ... 4583560974

[Psam]

What might give You the moral right to no longer be governed by your present government?

To start with, you must choose an alternative complete and concise method for your laws to be written and adjudicated. There is no way of ascertaining whether there are any further clearly definable moral obligations involved before having that right. God appears not to be answering any questions publicly on this matter.

According to the government of Canada, "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". Clearly this means that God should by law be consulted if any particular method of writing and adjudicating laws is intended to be imposed upon a person who prefers a different method.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons ... .html#h-38

I was recently presented with the idea of working to understand people who condone Crown governance being imposed upon a person who does not consent to it by doing some research into the political philosophy behind the consent of the governed. This might help alleviate anger over such disagreements and promote better understanding of each Other's views.

I looked at the Wikipedia entry on consent of the governed and I did not find it to present a complete perspective on this principle. I wanted to present my own perspective with more clarity. I have now written up a glossary of terms that portray my own thoughts on the consent of the governed and how I believe it fits into the context of the law.

Lawful society - a society in which every member has a complete and concise method for their laws to be written and adjudicated

Lawful state - a lawful society in which the method of writing and adjudicating laws is identical for every member

Partially lawful society - a society in which some members have chosen complete and concise methods for their laws to be written and adjudicated and efforts are made to allow members who have not done so to resolve disagreements through the use of common judgment rather than by previously specified rules

Lawless society - a society in which any disagreement that cannot be resolved by common judgment of the parties in dispute may result in use of force to try to have their way

Rule of law - the theory that the overall contentment of members of a society is better served by the existence of prescribed rules by which to resolve disagreements rather than by use of force between parties in a disagreement

Constitution - a written, complete and concise method for writing and adjudicating laws

Sovereignty - the condition where there is no justifiable reason for any other party to claim authority to overwhelm a person's or a society's choice of method by which to write and adjudicate laws

Responsible sovereignty - the ability to ascertain that a method of writing and adjudicating laws is complete and concise

Irresponsible sovereignty - refusal upon request to entertain the possibility that one's method of writing and adjudicating laws is not entirely complete or concise

Democratic sovereignty - the belief that it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society whose preferred method provides less equal influence to each member of society over the writing and adjudicating of laws

Sovereignty of civil peace - the belief that it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society whose preferred method is less conducive to civil peace

Sovereignty of elder wisdom - the belief that it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society whose preferred method does not provide stronger influence over the writing and adjudicating of laws to the elders who are believed to have developed greater wisdom

Labour sovereignty - the belief that it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society whose preferred method does not provide stronger influence over the writing and adjudicating of laws to the members of society who work harder

Religious sovereignty - the belief that a hypothetical supreme conscious entity has already defined laws by which people should have their conduct constrained and therefore it is morally justifiable to impose a method of writing and adjudicating laws, that provides people who have a stronger psychic connection with that supreme entity greater influence over the writing and adjudicating of laws, upon a person or society whose preferred method accomplishes this less effectively

Evolutionary sovereignty - the belief that the imposition of a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person or society has been morally justified to an extent for democratic, civil peace related, elder wisdom related, labour related, or religious reasons, or a combination thereof, and is evolving, to change which of these five reasons hold more emphasis in the justification for the imposition of this method upon a person or society without consent, thus increasing the extent to which this imposition is morally justified

Individual sovereignty - the belief that there is no way to ascertain the moral justification or lack thereof for imposing a method of writing and adjudicating laws upon a person who prefers a different method, so the possibilities should be acknowledged by either party that such an imposition when it occurs may or may not be an injustice

Conscientious consent - an expression of willingness to accept a method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to have one's conduct constrained

Tacit consent - implicit agreement to the rule of law without explicitly specifying consent to a method of writing and adjudicating laws and therefore being ascribed a method commonly used in a lawful society

Monarchy - a lawful society in which one individual is endowed as the authority on determining responsible sovereignty

Absolute monarchy - a lawful state in which the constitution is: "the monarch commands everyone"

Constitutional monarchy - a lawful state in which the monarch has abdicated a specified amount of authority to a constitution

Consensual constitutional monarchy - a monarchy in which a member who shows an alternative method of writing and adjudicating laws to the monarch may, if the monarch agrees that the dissenting member's method is complete and concise, result in the monarch commanding law enforcement officers to only enforce the laws written under the alternative method upon this member of society rather than the monarch's constitution

Republic - a lawful state, created by the enactment of a constitution, in which the extent to which individual sovereignty is respected by that state is specified by the sovereign People within a defined geographical region through the methods defined in the constitution

Absolute republic - a republic whose members have decided to regard individual sovereignty as having no moral justification

Consensual republic - a republic whose members have decided to make every effort possible to respect individual sovereignty when adjudicating a disagreement between one of its consensual members and another person who prefers an alternative method of writing and adjudicating laws

Democratic state - a lawful state in which each member of society is provided some influence in determining how laws are written and adjudicated

Diplomacy - the ability of different lawful states to resolve disagreements through negotiation without implying that use of force is justifiable by either state in any expected circumstance

War - the use of force by states in circumstances where one state believes that the method used by the other state to write and adjudicate its laws allows its members to act in ways that are morally unacceptable and so uses forcible means to attempt to deprive the members of the other state of their individual sovereignty, which is then defended with force by the other state

Geographically separate peace - the ability of two lawful states to co-exist with members of each state in separate geographical regions with all disputes between members of each state resolved by diplomacy

Borderless peace - the ability of two or more lawful states to co-exist within the same geographical territory with all members of each state held only to the laws of that state and all disagreements between members of different states resolved with diplomacy

[The Observer]

The definitions suffer from overthinking them and trying to twist the actual meaning into something Psam believes supports his quest to establish his own law.

The "war" definition is indicative of that. Sometimes war is waged for any number of other reasons than the belief that the enemy nation's way of making laws is morally wrong. I doubt that Genghis Khan waged war on half the world simply because he was upset with their set of laws.

As far as a "moral" right to no longer be governed, that is a subjective issue - always has been, always will. You can argue that the American Revolution was moral, you can argue that it was immoral. It is only the fact the rebels won that makes the difference as to whether the revolution can be considered to have a "righteous" foundation to it. If the rebels had lost, there would be a far different set of history books around that would simply paint them as losers and without any "moral" basis for their claims to be "rightfully" rebelling.