The Balance between Conservatives and Progressives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage

**Original Poster** · 09-12-2011 08:09 PM

Liberal and Conservative have been pitted against eachother on a civil struggle for dominance. Whatever the parties are called, this is an inevitable conclusion of our form democracy. Majority Rule entrusts the nation will always be in conflict as each side wages for the majority and multiple parties will always join back into two parties for the sake of combating their uniting enemies. That's not to say a Political Spectrum does not exist or that Liberals and Conservatives don't disagree on several important issues. But this division is being used against the people rather for the sake of utilizing the wealth of our various perspectives. The unanswered question becomes “which side is right?” and the two opponents struggle for political control to answer that question. But rock isn't right in every game, and neither is paper or scissors. Just because someone thinks differently, that does not make them wrong.

The Left Wing values openness, fairness, equality, cooperation and diplomacy. Early Civilizations such as the Incas can attribute most of their success to their method of obtaining knowledge by sending scouts to visit every other reachable Civilization and learn everything possible making knowledge synonymous with power in that civilization. Through exploration of other cultures we can enrich our own. Liberals are necessary just as the senses are. If one goes through the world only listening to themselves and never learning from the outside, they are numb, they are deaf and they are blind.

But the Left is also more sensitive, and that doesn't mean they're weaker because they aren't as military minded. They are more sensitive to corrosion from outside values and losing their own culture's integrity. This is why Conservatives are necessary. Evolution has two sides: mutation and preservation. Organisms that mutate typically don't carry mutations which are supremely beneficial and thus the necessity exists for the species to be drawn to a reliable and tested method. At the most basic level, organisms are still in a state of constant competition. And in this state, tested and reliable does not survive if it is not also capable of adapting and growing, progressing forward. As one observes the ladder of complexity, cooperation becomes apparent as a strategic move within this competitive atmosphere in order to gain an edge. Organisms cooperate because two do better than one and it becomes an evolutionary imperative. But people are also capable of betrayal. Communist Revolutions have failed because once in power, the proletariat's party transformed into a new oligarchy. African Mountain Gorillas are going extinct, greatly due to loss of habitat but partially due to competition within the group. If the Dominant Male is bested in combat, all the infants get slaughtered so the new Dominant Male can impregnate the females. This is a tragic obstacle in the path of restoring their numbers but it's also a very telling reminder that the purpose of Cooperation is still Competition and still done for an ultimately selfish reason: self preservation. The cells in your body work together to preserve your body in order to preserve themselves. If the outside did not provide any sort of threat, then what are we cooperating for? If no one cares for preserving the methods and values of their home, they've already proven their values are worth nothing and ready to be conquered by a stronger opponent.

In short Liberals exist to explore new ideas so the society may grow while Conservatives exist to preserve old ideas so the society does not corrode. The balance where the two meet is how a culture evolves and becomes more powerful. Old ideas cannot stand up to reliable new data is eventually dropped, new ideas that cannot persevere against loyalty to tradition are purged. Just as the Scientific Method breaks ideas into Hypotheses, Theories and Laws, the mechanics of our government and legislation must also incorporate multiple levels in order to account for the spectrum of gray. Rather than accept this basic truth, the Left and Right have dug deeper trenches, failing to find anything rational about the other side and have fallen on the brink of civil war. This is, at least, the game the Media plays. This is natural, the media is after ratings, crazy extremists provide the best ratings. Moderate thinkers do not. However, this is also obviously a purposeful move by Big Media to keep the population from uniting against our common enemy. If it were not, why is Ron Paul, whose placing invariably well in polls, being ignored and twisted into a joke by the Media? Because he's representing values that do not completely coincide with Conservative Rhetoric so to be taken seriously he would have to run as a Liberal. But by running as a Conservative he's bringing up issues that have been pulled out from under the rug of Conservatives in this country. So caught up military support and christian values, they failed to see their own politicians transform this nation into a Socialist Dictatorship run by Oligarchs in the private sector. Competition has been overrun by a Cooperative collective of financial institutions which have our politicians employed and have essentially usurped our Democracy. The Federal Government is now a Publicly Traded Company where the private sector bids on our Congress so they can do the job of transforming everything their sight into a Conglomerated Financial Institution.

And the Rhetoric in the US has shifted so dramatically Right Wing that Liberals are outrunning the right wing mob fervor of the Tea Party. Campaign Funds and Ignorant Mobs are the new vehicles of political change. Even if we managed to remove the corruption from Congress and start a three or a four party system, it would invariably return to this state. I do not believe the Founding Fathers failed, I believe they achieved a complete success for the enemy they faced at the time. But it would be criminal to say the government they built and the laws they built were complete for all time. Once more, we must advance forward. Not as Libertarians or Socialists but within a Republic capable of compromising for the benefit of everyone. The time for majority rule is over. The time for dramatic campaigns that may as well be beauty pageants is over.

On a National scale, average people are not suited for making decisions. The average person is best fit for making decisions related to his own community. Conversely, centralized government agencies are not suited for making decisions related to individual communities because they are incapable of reading the communities individual needs as well as the community itself. This is why Democracy works best on a smaller scale. Consensus Based Democracy doesn't work in a room larger than three hundred people without fragmenting into parties (the object of the game is to have each individual represent their own opinion and not fall into mob behavior). Even that is pushing it but the line must be drawn wide enough to encompass the difference between rural and urban populations. Besides, this room of people is not reaching a Consensus for the Nation, simply for the community they live in. This where our Federal Government must start. This is the foundation it must rest on, a collection of communities the size of small towns or neighborhoods. These Community Forums would lead Consensus Based Democracy on all issues related to their community in order to find a proper compromise they can all coexist in. Coexistence is the key to this, we're not trying to reach consensus to figure out how to make a utopia (which would be impossible). We're reaching consensus to keep things running.

From there, they elect a Councilor to take part in the Municipal Council. This is where Majority Rule still comes into effect though minority cosigners are a possibility for close votes. However, at the Municipal Council, Councilors from each community must reach fair compromise for all issues related to the Municipality. Continuing up the ladder, they elect a Delegate to meet at the District Assembly for all issues related to the District and to elect a representative to meet with the state which sends someone to meet with Federal Congress. In every level of government, people would be held accountable to a room full of Constituents. With each ascending level, the room becomes smaller and the speaking more manageable. Everyone gets a voice, a veto on legislation relevant to their court and a vote on the Representative, Mediator and Enforcer for each echelon of government. The Representative takes their collective opinion to the next echelon of government. The Mediator organizes and prioritizes issues to be brought before the Constituency. The Enforcer administers the legislation. They appoint their own subordinates.

This bases everything on trust. People must earn the trust of their constituents because they'll be meeting with all of them face to face and their voting record will be held completely transparent to their Constituency. This also creates a system of Trickle Up Legislation whereas legislation which works well in Communities can be adopted for the Municipality and so forth so ideas are tested before they're put into action on a wide scale. In fact, requiring compromise on all levels of government would be impossible without trickle-up legislation. This also creates a government in layers where the responsibility of the Federal Government is to build the most basic frame of law upon which everyone can agree and allow the states and lower divisions to build upon that in a progressive fashion. This means Federal Law trumps the State in matters where the State tries to remove Federal Legislation (And so forth down the ladder) but the lower echelon's additional ordinates, sanctions or rights cannot be invalidated by higher echelons unless they are obvious attempts to circumvent higher law. For instance if the Federal Government creates regulations to protect the environment, individual communities could not circumvent those sanctions by claiming it's a human right to pollute the environment. However, if the Federal Government provides no environmental protection, it would not be able to enforce this lack of constraint against other divisions.

No electoral college, no disconnected town halls or state governments that stand apart from the Community-based system. Every government position is now encompassed into this ladder. To help give you a better idea I thought up some terminology in order to map out this Tribal Ladder. (The numbers are the population capacities)

Echelon.........Constituency... ....Session......Representative. ...Mediator.......Enforcer

Community....(300)Citizens.... ....Forum........Councilor..... .......Trustee.........Official
Municipality....(200)Councilors. ..Council.......Delegate...... .......Director........Administrator
District...........(150)Delegates. ...Assembly...Senator....... ........Facilitator.....Minister
State.............(100)Senators... ..Senate.......Consul......... ......Chancellor.....Governor
Federation.....(50)Consuls.... .....Congress.....Emissary........ .....Arbiter..........President

**ThePreserver** · 10-07-2011 09:11 PM

People would need to be actively involved in politics to get this to work. I also think the vast number of levels would cause a lot of wasted energy, too.

The main problem I have with this is, not everyone WANTS to have this type of government. That's the beauty of a local-level government; some towns have trustees, some have mayors and councils, some have a chairperson; they get to choose what they want.

I personally think what is laid out in the US Constitution is the best form of government that can be devised: but we need to change the Interstate Commerce Clause so Congress doesn't walk all over it. If we FOLLOWED the Constitution, we'd have a functioning society. (Also the Electoral College should go the way of Maine-Nebraska). The guidelines for a functioning government are there; we just have to take a look at them again and respect the 10th Amendment.

**Original Poster** · 10-07-2011 09:35 PM

Yeah I'm not trying to pidgeon hole government so much as lay out a suggested reformation which connects all levels of government. To me, people are most capable of positively effecting government at the local level, but these local decisions should go up the ladder to the Federal Government. Rather than choosing from politicians, people would be choosing from trusted friends. Rather than following the sway of the mob, constituencies in higher echelons would be also be free to make policy decisions that actually matter.

That's why I bring it back to consensus and trickle-up legislation. If unilateral decisions that effect the nation are to be made, they should be agreed upon by the entire constituency or compromised until agreements can be made. This pretty much enables what you said to happen: people choose their own involvement. The very least one must do is vote for their community councilor.

**Laughing Man** · 10-07-2011 10:53 PM

This post doesn't make sense. Government should be grounded in the lower/local levels yet the Federal government has supreme power and local government cannot nullify its power.

Am I the only one seeing this huge incoherent line of thought?

**Laughing Man** · 10-07-2011 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

People would need to be actively involved in politics to get this to work. I also think the vast number of levels would cause a lot of wasted energy, too.

The main problem I have with this is, not everyone WANTS to have this type of government. That's the beauty of a local-level government; some towns have trustees, some have mayors and councils, some have a chairperson; they get to choose what they want.

I personally think what is laid out in the US Constitution is the best form of government that can be devised: but we need to change the Interstate Commerce Clause so Congress doesn't walk all over it. If we FOLLOWED the Constitution, we'd have a functioning society. (Also the Electoral College should go the way of Maine-Nebraska). The guidelines for a functioning government are there; we just have to take a look at them again and respect the 10th Amendment.

If the US constitution laid out the best government ever devised then how did we reach such a state today? To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the constitution either allowed what we have today or it has been powerless to stop it and in either case it shows its uselessness. The problem I always encounter with Constitutionalists is that they imply a static political society. Everyone must agree in the interpretation and powers of the Constitution or else the whole system falls on its face. That necessitates a static conceptual idea that must exist for generations in the United States. Our children's children need to see that the Constitution is a document that supposedly restricts the powers of the federal government. Yet your complaint to Omnis is the very complaint you should use against yourself. Not everyone WANTS this type of government. As Bastiat said:

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

An ever expanding government is almost a historical law.

**ThePreserver** · 10-07-2011 11:26 PM

I didn't say we accomplished the goals

I said what is laid out was the best form of government (and I'm sorry, in the heat of the typing moment I actually meant "that has been devised.")

How did we reach the state we did? Because citizens fail to care when the Constitution is used as a door mat. If we followed the Constitution and our justice system enforced it, we'd probably be in a better position.

**Laughing Man** · 10-08-2011 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I didn't say we accomplished the goals

I said what is laid out was the best form of government (and I'm sorry, in the heat of the typing moment I actually meant "that has been devised.")

How did we reach the state we did? Because citizens fail to care when the Constitution is used as a door mat. If we followed the Constitution and our justice system enforced it, we'd probably be in a better position.

You are just further proving my point. The Constitution is a useless document unless you have a universal, generic understanding of it by all citizenry and they don't deviate from that understanding. And I am called utopian for trying to propound a people with no government, truly Constitutionalists take the cake.

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

This post doesn't make sense. Government should be grounded in the lower/local levels yet the Federal government has supreme power and local government cannot nullify its power.

Am I the only one seeing this huge incoherent line of thought?

Perhaps you didn't read it all? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Federal government would be elected by state government which is elected by district government which is elected by municipal government which is elected by community government. Thus when the Federal Government meets to debate legislation, they are held to the constituency of the states, which are held by the constituency of their districts. If the federal government makes a law, it must be agreeable by the constituency and the constituency of the constituency and so on.

Furthermore lower government cannot nullify higher government but it can build upon higher government. What this means is if the federal government creates a skeleton of the basic model of government and basic rights, this makes the foundation of national law. From there, national law is enhanced by state law, district law and municipal law. The only difference between this and the government our constitution lays out is that all forms of government are elected by lower forms of government and all decisions require consensus while in its current form we put all votes directly in the hands of the people (but remove the people's power of nomination) and rest all decisions on majority rule/which mob yells loudest.

**Descensus** · 10-08-2011 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

*looks at his sig*

**ThePreserver** · 10-08-2011 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You are just further proving my point. The Constitution is a useless document unless you have a universal, generic understanding of it by all citizenry and they don't deviate from that understanding. And I am called utopian for trying to propound a people with no government, truly Constitutionalists take the cake.

But why am I supporting localized government? Because people can choose how they are governed at a local level, if they are upset, it's often very simple to change with a small group of people. It's far more difficult to change a Federal government than a localized one.

If I were at the Constitutional Convention I would have been with Jefferson, I'm an Anti-Federalist. (And just because not everyone agrees completely on the Constitution doesn't make it useless. The whole part about "due process" and the right to trial by jury, that's usually a good thing, even though some may oppose it due to lack of expediency.) Unless someone doesn't believe in human rights, which is quite possible.

**IndieAnthias** · 10-08-2011 11:14 AM

This is rather old but if anyone hasn't seen it, I recommend it because I still find it very insightful, and it's relevant to this discussion.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

**Xei** · 10-08-2011 04:22 PM

lrn2democracy

You guys speak as if you have a two-family monarchy or something.

The entire point is that they have different opinions and the majority decides which is best. If they both 'worked together' then the electorate has no choice and you have castrated the soul of a democracy, congratulations. If neither of the main parties provides any reasonable kind of option, vote for somebody who does, or if that person doesn't exist, run for election.

**IndieAnthias** · 10-08-2011 05:23 PM

That's great and all but the reality is that the degree of polarization is very high right now (artificially so in my opinion), and as asanine as it may seem, we do have to dwell on these very basic essentials of co-operation. That's where we're at right now, unfortunately.

**ThePreserver** · 10-08-2011 05:29 PM

We don't live in a Democracy, silly, we live in a Republic (one that has become corrupted.)

You can't control special interest groups and you can't control the two parties. It essentially IS a two-family monarchy, because if you are a politician and you don't follow their rules, you get booted out and are deemed "unelectable." Comcast, owner of MSNBC, is one of the largest donors to Democratic candidates, so they not only have a MEDIA outlet for them, but a financial outlet for them.

And that would also require us to convince millions and millions of people to vote otherwise, when they are convinced by media outlets that voting third party is a 'wasted vote.' So we have to deal with an uninformed voting populace and a corrupt system that pats its own back. (And no they don't have different opinions, both parties are war-mongering, corporation-owned, rich-supporting puppets.)

It's not as easy as "lrn2democracy". If you don't live in the system, you can't fully understand the system and how horribly corrupt its become. That's what Occupy Wall Street is about. Unfortunately they have no where to put their votes this year, since usually it's Dennis Kucinich that they support.

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

lrn2democracy

You guys speak as if you have a two-family monarchy or something.

The entire point is that they have different opinions and the majority decides which is best. If they both 'worked together' then the electorate has no choice and you have castrated the soul of a democracy, congratulations. If neither of the main parties provides any reasonable kind of option, vote for somebody who does, or if that person doesn't exist, run for election.

Just to repeat the obvious, majority rule always leads to polarization and extremism where a person's actual values, which are usually more moderate, are magnetized.

**Xei** · 10-08-2011 08:34 PM

So let's get of rid of democracy then, hurr.

**ThePreserver** · 10-08-2011 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

So let's get of rid of democracy then, hurr.

Can't get rid of something that doesn't exist! Hehe.

**Original Poster** · 10-08-2011 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

So let's get of rid of democracy then, hurr.

No. Let's evolve it.

**cmind** · 10-08-2011 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

No. Let's evolve it.

No, let's get rid of it. Democracy is always the majority using force to impose its will on the minority. It is immoral. The only way to freedom is to abolish the state altogether.

**Laughing Man** · 10-09-2011 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Perhaps you didn't read it all? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Federal government would be elected by state government which is elected by district government which is elected by municipal government which is elected by community government. Thus when the Federal Government meets to debate legislation, they are held to the constituency of the states, which are held by the constituency of their districts. If the federal government makes a law, it must be agreeable by the constituency and the constituency of the constituency and so on.

Furthermore lower government cannot nullify higher government but it can build upon higher government. What this means is if the federal government creates a skeleton of the basic model of government and basic rights, this makes the foundation of national law. From there, national law is enhanced by state law, district law and municipal law. The only difference between this and the government our constitution lays out is that all forms of government are elected by lower forms of government and all decisions require consensus while in its current form we put all votes directly in the hands of the people (but remove the people's power of nomination) and rest all decisions on majority rule/which mob yells loudest.

I get the federalism you are trying to implement (states come together in a mutual contract). I get that and to the degree that it promotes liberty (which is to say, some but not all) I agree with it. However, the incoherence I see is you retracting the ability of the state governments to disregard federal law. If the states come together to create a federal system then by that very action the powers that are given TO the federal government are FROM the states yet you make it impossible for the states to take back those powers thus leaving them in a perpetual system they cannot break free from yet they went through the process of creating.

**Laughing Man** · 10-09-2011 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

But why am I supporting localized government? Because people can choose how they are governed at a local level, if they are upset, it's often very simple to change with a small group of people. It's far more difficult to change a Federal government than a localized one.

If I were at the Constitutional Convention I would have been with Jefferson, I'm an Anti-Federalist. (And just because not everyone agrees completely on the Constitution doesn't make it useless. The whole part about "due process" and the right to trial by jury, that's usually a good thing, even though some may oppose it due to lack of expediency.) Unless someone doesn't believe in human rights, which is quite possible.

Be mindful of Jefferson. He wanted aristocratic rulers but ones who were disinterested in using political powers for further gain. Those who were not "gentlemen" were apart of the rabble who were incapable of running a republic. It is only later that he mellows out. Anyways, the fact that not everyone agrees on the Constitution is something that creates its own downfall for what is "general welfare?" If 51% think it is the right for the government to distribute healthcare and entitlements then the 49% have a serious problem. In some capacity American history is the battle of the role of government. Look at the revolutionary era and the disputes between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, look at the early Republic and see the conflict over the United States and whether it should build a navy for our merchant fleet and send in into international waters. Look at the antebellum years: temperance, slavery, tariffs, secession, fugitive slave laws, The Guilded Age, monetary control & inflation/deflation, tariffs (again) international trade disputes. The Progressive era, business for the public welfare, democracy for the world, tax collection. The inter-war period, prohibition. Post WWII, defense against subversive ideas that degrade national character...should I continue?

Where was the Constitution during temperance? secession? international trade defense? business regulation? international democratization? Where was it for taxation? Not every state concurred with the income tax. Where was the Constitution during the House of Unamerican Activities?

It was sitting behind a bullet proof glass frame in Washington D.C., doing nothing. When it comes to power in this nation, its is whatever the 51% wants and supposedly following a document isn't going to change that.

**ThePreserver** · 10-09-2011 07:29 PM

That's why I don't support strict democracy. It's the will of the 50% +1 imposing their views on the will of the 50% -1. People go with what suits their needs best, which many times isn't freedom. Liberty is the best equalizer of all people in the long run when under a proper Republic. Rome had a similar beginning and end in their Republic; it began with educated, concerned men who wanted the best for their people, but eventually corruption seized control and they became an Empire. What's any different here? Corruption became the ruling class and we now face a Empire that we cannot afford to maintain.

**Original Poster** · 10-10-2011 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I get the federalism you are trying to implement (states come together in a mutual contract). I get that and to the degree that it promotes liberty (which is to say, some but not all) I agree with it. However, the incoherence I see is you retracting the ability of the state governments to disregard federal law. If the states come together to create a federal system then by that very action the powers that are given TO the federal government are FROM the states yet you make it impossible for the states to take back those powers thus leaving them in a perpetual system they cannot break free from yet they went through the process of creating.

The only power given to the Federal Government would be power contracted to the Federal Government by the states. What is in that federal contract is essentially untouchable by state law, universally recognized. The hope is that a Federal Congressman, held to his State Senate's power, would not sign a contract that does not coincide with his state's interests. Furthermore, the senate would not use their power in a way that does not agree with their own individual constituencies inside the state. The objective is to remove the distance between representatives and their constituencies on the federal level by creating a holonic system of legislation.

**cmind** · 10-10-2011 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The only power given to the Federal Government would be power contracted to the Federal Government by the states.

That's precisely what the US *federal* government was, by design. It still became too powerful.

**Laughing Man** · 10-10-2011 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That's why I don't support strict democracy. It's the will of the 50% +1 imposing their views on the will of the 50% -1. People go with what suits their needs best, which many times isn't freedom. Liberty is the best equalizer of all people in the long run when under a proper Republic. Rome had a similar beginning and end in their Republic; it began with educated, concerned men who wanted the best for their people, but eventually corruption seized control and they became an Empire. What's any different here? Corruption became the ruling class and we now face a Empire that we cannot afford to maintain.

But even republicanism (not the party but the principle) is about the "common good" and the "public welfare." Whether it is 99% or 51% is just a matter of numbers, not of principle.