Great Question The term you’re looking for is ‘direct democracy’. 1) First, in g

Great Question

The term you’re looking for is ‘direct democracy’.

1) First, in general, the system of government that the european people have lived under is better described as the rule of law and jury system. In this sense, a parliament, was a jury that authorize or not the actions of the king (CEO of the people). The ‘innovation’ that instead, the parliament governed, converted the ‘via-negativa’ jury system to a ‘via-positiva governing system’. By restoring direct democracy, you’re seeking to restore (correctly) the traditional europea method of governing by jury. This is also important because it doesn’t empower the people to ‘make up nonsense’ but instead allows the people to approve or reject policy and particularly taxes that they feel would affect them.

2) In the broader context, representatives should, at least in theory, be elected for demonstrated competency in military, industrial, or government affairs. They generally are not. Because competent people (as was the problem in England) eventually lose patience with the incompetence of government and the dishonesty of politics.

3) If representatives are not capable of such, then we have alternative choice of either direct proportional democracy (voting by heads), or direct economic democracy (voting by what are taxes are spent on), or a democracy of randomly selected jury of representatives who have met some minimum standard of demonstrated competency: randomizing the process that prevents politicals from obtaining positions that can be manipulated by special intersets.

4) However this is only possible if we prohibit “false promise (fraud) and lying to the public, in public, in matters public,” – which was impossible until my (our) work on providing the juridical criteria of decidability for legislating and enforcing such laws. And it’s necessary because the people are (very) easily deceived, and that’s because they are (almost universally) desirous of being decieved if it promises irresponsibility for self and commons, and even more so, if accompanied by desirous of magical thinking to justify it. (Especially white women).

5) The other alternatives are quite simple (a) give women a separate house of government (lower house so to speak). (b) Rescind the right of women to vote. (c) ethnonationalism the government and all it’s offices. (d) legislate european religions alone as religions of the state, and that others are either tolerated or prohibited based on their consistency with and correspondence with our constitution, our natural law, and our christian ethics and morality – because religion is a group evolutionary strategy and they are and always will be competitors.

That’s just the beginning of the list of possibilities.

I live to serve. 😉

Cheers

Reply addressees: @rynjpbb8yw @eyeslasho