A Challenge to My Democratic Political Thinking

“One question I do have is what if the public decides democratically it has no use for your brand of politics? What happens then?” Well, a global hypothetical of change is always in play for any social structure and can only be met with a hypothetical of ideas as well. Thus, things may always need to change or adapt to needs but for me this alway should strive to social well-being as its society that is in question, and psychological well-being as society is but a community of individuals. Also note that “democratic” is not referring to the political party in this instance, but a democracy, specifically direct democracy. Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of modern Western-style democracies, which are indirect democracies. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Most countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall. Have you ever felt like the government doesn’t really care what you think? Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the US government represent the people? Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies...

Power Authority Oppression

Limiting the power to a point in authority, maximize the potential for oppression. This is referring to the need for greater inclusion of many instead of the exclusion driven only by the few. Moreover, how this greater inclusion can be adopted is non hierarchical political structure and more direct democracy. Such as a “Heterarchy” which is a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways. Definitions of the term vary among the disciplines: in social and information sciences, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same “horizontal” position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal...

The Ontology of Humanistic Economics in Society?

I am against classifying humans by wealth, even though I agree that is how it generally is in our world. To me we are all equal, the factor of “money” should not disseminate difference as humans as it is external to them and not them. And wealth inequality should concern you too. We should wonder if any psychological issues are attached to say being rich or poor? Like how wealth may lower compassion or how poverty harms the brain, etc. All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Ref Ref Ref Ontology of Money using Humanistic Economics in Society: First a prosocial humanistic Social theory should motivate your economic system not the economic system motivating your social theory. Humanistic sociology seeks to shed light on questions such as, “What is the relationship between a man of principle and a man of opportunism?” It can be seen that any answer to such a question must draw on experience and facts from many disciplines. In sociology, anthropology and linguistics, structuralism is the methodology that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure. It works to uncover the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel. Structuralists influenced by humanistic sociology will interpret data in terms of opposing valuations, contrasts, and relations. Interpretation of the data must be contextual. Structuralism allows for a realist analysis (structures represent an organized reality) in relation to the larger social system. By understanding the larger social system, you are differentiating from post-modernism, which seeks to describe society by its lack of structure, or fragmentation. Structuralism...

Is the Value of Ancient Women Different?

Evidence from the ancient past show that female value was likely a little different than before the sexism that later became so pervasive. Today, with our now male centric religions or the many cultures of our current or past historic societies, which seem often to devalue or give a lesser status or limited value of women. Many present day thinkers may find it difficult to comprehend that women could have been valued, be equal to some extent, or even hold a position or power, especially political power in early historic or prehistoric times but even more so in the Middle East region where today, the most heavy restrictions are on women’s rights. The following is a list of women as leaders or rulers and other positions of political authority that may help support a different thinking: 6,530 – 5,240 years ago Legendary Queen Eyleuka of Ethiopia 5,000 years ago Shagshag ruled as Queen in Mesopotamia 4,952 – After 4,939 years ago Pharaoh Meritneith (Meryet-Nit) of Egypt 4,720 years ago Regent Dowager Queen Ni-Maat-Hepi of Egypt 4,585 – 4,145 years ago Legendary Queen Nehasset Nais of Ethiopia 4,580 – 4,510 years ago Controller of the Affairs of the Kiltwearers Queen Hetepheres II of Egypt 4,570 years ago Politically Influential Queen Meresankh III of Egypt 4,530 years ago Politically Influential Queen Khamerernebti II of Egypt 4,500 years ago Queen Ku-baba Azag-bau of Kis (Iraq) 4,500 years ago Co-Ruler Pu-Abi of Ur (Iraq) 4,459 – 4,401 years ago Governor of Markellashi in the Elam District (Iraq) 4,420 years ago Queen Su-bad of Ur (Iraq) 4,334 years ago High Priestess Enheduanna of the...

Obsessed with god and religion?

Aren’t you worried that you are too obsessed with god and religion Damien? I am not obsessed with god or religion any more than a firefighter would be about fires. I wish to put them out as they burn people. I am no more obsessed with gods or religion then a cancer doctor (oncologist) is with cancer knowing that the cure is needed and must be found and until it is found serious effort and methodologies must be used to minimize the problem until it can be stopped, but realizing some may die and others go into remission or full recovery all on their own never to have a problem again. Similarly, I am no more obsessed with gods or religion then a vision doctor (ophthalmologist) is with vision, knowing that achieving full sight is the goal but serious effort and any methodologies must be used to minimize the problem giving as much vision clarity as possible. Moreover, I am no more obsessed with gods or religion then a hearing doctor (otolaryngologist) is with hearing, knowing that regaining full hearing is needed and must be found and until it is found serious effort and methodologies must be used to minimize the problem giving as much hearing clarity as possible. I am a reality revolutionary (atheist, realist, & rationalist) I am obsessed pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality (god and religion) knowing that the cure is needed and must be found and until it is found serious effort and methodologies must be used to minimize the problem until it can be stopped. As well as knowing that achieving full sight of real...