I like your question: What does unity in a democratic system mean? I think one of the first things we have to confront is that saying a "democracy" is our highest goal is antithetical to unity. All this will mean is that the majority tyrannize the minority. Your explanation of "constitutional pluralism" shows that democracy is not the actual highest value. There should be some values that the simple majority just can't eradicate even though it would be democratic to do so. Of course, that is what the US Constitution attempts to do! This article calls it "respect[ing] the basic rights of others." Pure democracy tends to ignore those in times of stress particularly. We see this when "democracy" wants to criminalize speaking or writing words, as is happening in some parts of Europe now it appears. So shift the emphasis on democracy to this actual higher value and I think that value should be freedom.
Ken, thanks for joining the conversation with a thoughtful comment. I like your emphasis--we have a structure for society, but in service to what? The democratic structure isn't the ultimate good. The agency of man (liberty/freedom) is far more compelling as the highest value good. Some might say truth or justice have competing claims.
Likewise, we can debate other non-democratic systems and analyze how well they support the ultimate goods that society is seeking.
By using a moral framework, we can choose freedom as the highest good while also acknowledging that freedom as a virtue must have some bounds or it risks being excessive (anarchy) or deficient (lacking core civil rights). Finding the sweet spot is a key to maintaining a healthy order in society.
Thank you, Joe. I agree that freedom has limits. For example, your freedom to swing your arm stops before it hits my nose. I doubt that Truth can be the highest value since coercing people to adopt the truth has shown itself to be a recipe for a great deal of mischief in the world. Truth usually comes about as the result of Proposition, Discussion, Disagreement, Alteration, start over. This does not happen unless there is an environment of Freedom it seems to me. Justice also has its problems, like defining it to begin with. But as you pointed out, there are limits to Freedom as well. In any case, I guess we agree that the highest value cannot be Democracy in any case.
As I see it, the plague of our time is "tyranny". By tyranny I mean one person imposing their views on another person. This doesn't have to be at the government level. The worst tyranny is at a local level. Imagine one neighbor going to extremes to enforce their view of proper lawn care on their neighbor.
Freedom is the opposite of tyranny.
A stable society is where tyranny and freedom are in balance.
Some may believe that Simulated Intelligence (AI) is absolutely essential for the welfare of all, while at the same time others oppose the destructive effects of implementing it (building and powering data centers). Unity is allowing for some states and localities to embrace AI and it's promise for a better future, while other states may want to preserve nature and a different culture of life built on more traditional labor.
Often we talk as if government was the ultimate authority, while overlooking the power that money has. Wealthy mega corporations wield their money as power to implement their own choices. The failure of our government is the failure to protect us from these other forces. Whether that's your neighbor insisting you use toxic chemicals to destroy dandelions or Microsoft influencing government officials to get a power hungry data center built. Until government can actually represent the people and resist corruption, we will continue down the path of tyranny.
“self-government is not a machine, it is a relationship” I agree, Joe. Government is a system of relationships with power. That means the quality of that relationship depends on whether power is:
• Transparent or hidden
• Accountable or arbitrary
• Shared or hoarded
• Used to create common wealth, or to extract private profit
Without the word “power,” the phrase “system of relationships” sounds warm, fuzzy, or purely social. Democratic self-governance is a system of relationships in which power is distributed, exercised, checked, and held accountable.
The current monetary system hides power inside private banks and debt contracts. The NEED Act would make that power visible, public, and democratically allocable, not to eliminate power, but to relate to it as citizens, not as supplicants. That makes it the most vital prerogative of democratic self-governance.
Our 250-year anniversary is our opportunity to expose people to the vital history of the nation that has been left out of our nation’s history books. The colonies were in dire economic straights until they figured out the money. For a time more people were leaving than were arriving but after they figured out the money, they created enormous prosperity which got the attention of the British Lords. They saw wealth being created and they wanted it so they banned the colonial currencies, plunging the colonies into a depression. As Ben Franklin noted, that is what precipitated the revolution. Having been robbed of their prosperity the colonies then came together demanding their restoration and being rebuffed revolted.
How do we maintain One Nation without forcing One Model? The NEED Act answers:
1. Unity through shared money creation – Money is a public utility, not a private debt instrument. That creates a common foundation.
2. Diversity through decentralized allocation – 25% to states and localities means Texas can fund high-speed rail, Vermont can fund rural broadband, and Detroit can fund water infrastructure; no one model imposed from Washington.
3. Dignity through the dividend – Every citizen has direct purchasing power, reducing the zero-sum anxiety that fuels culture wars.
4. No debt, no interest, no scarcity-forcing – Because money is created as an asset, not loaned into existence, communities aren't forced into growth-at-all-costs or competitive austerity trying to pay the interest on their debts.
I like your question: What does unity in a democratic system mean? I think one of the first things we have to confront is that saying a "democracy" is our highest goal is antithetical to unity. All this will mean is that the majority tyrannize the minority. Your explanation of "constitutional pluralism" shows that democracy is not the actual highest value. There should be some values that the simple majority just can't eradicate even though it would be democratic to do so. Of course, that is what the US Constitution attempts to do! This article calls it "respect[ing] the basic rights of others." Pure democracy tends to ignore those in times of stress particularly. We see this when "democracy" wants to criminalize speaking or writing words, as is happening in some parts of Europe now it appears. So shift the emphasis on democracy to this actual higher value and I think that value should be freedom.
Ken, thanks for joining the conversation with a thoughtful comment. I like your emphasis--we have a structure for society, but in service to what? The democratic structure isn't the ultimate good. The agency of man (liberty/freedom) is far more compelling as the highest value good. Some might say truth or justice have competing claims.
Likewise, we can debate other non-democratic systems and analyze how well they support the ultimate goods that society is seeking.
By using a moral framework, we can choose freedom as the highest good while also acknowledging that freedom as a virtue must have some bounds or it risks being excessive (anarchy) or deficient (lacking core civil rights). Finding the sweet spot is a key to maintaining a healthy order in society.
Again, thanks for sharing!
Thank you, Joe. I agree that freedom has limits. For example, your freedom to swing your arm stops before it hits my nose. I doubt that Truth can be the highest value since coercing people to adopt the truth has shown itself to be a recipe for a great deal of mischief in the world. Truth usually comes about as the result of Proposition, Discussion, Disagreement, Alteration, start over. This does not happen unless there is an environment of Freedom it seems to me. Justice also has its problems, like defining it to begin with. But as you pointed out, there are limits to Freedom as well. In any case, I guess we agree that the highest value cannot be Democracy in any case.
Excellent discussion of a vital topic.
As I see it, the plague of our time is "tyranny". By tyranny I mean one person imposing their views on another person. This doesn't have to be at the government level. The worst tyranny is at a local level. Imagine one neighbor going to extremes to enforce their view of proper lawn care on their neighbor.
Freedom is the opposite of tyranny.
A stable society is where tyranny and freedom are in balance.
Some may believe that Simulated Intelligence (AI) is absolutely essential for the welfare of all, while at the same time others oppose the destructive effects of implementing it (building and powering data centers). Unity is allowing for some states and localities to embrace AI and it's promise for a better future, while other states may want to preserve nature and a different culture of life built on more traditional labor.
Often we talk as if government was the ultimate authority, while overlooking the power that money has. Wealthy mega corporations wield their money as power to implement their own choices. The failure of our government is the failure to protect us from these other forces. Whether that's your neighbor insisting you use toxic chemicals to destroy dandelions or Microsoft influencing government officials to get a power hungry data center built. Until government can actually represent the people and resist corruption, we will continue down the path of tyranny.
Always balanced and insightful commentary. Good points, John!
“self-government is not a machine, it is a relationship” I agree, Joe. Government is a system of relationships with power. That means the quality of that relationship depends on whether power is:
• Transparent or hidden
• Accountable or arbitrary
• Shared or hoarded
• Used to create common wealth, or to extract private profit
Without the word “power,” the phrase “system of relationships” sounds warm, fuzzy, or purely social. Democratic self-governance is a system of relationships in which power is distributed, exercised, checked, and held accountable.
The current monetary system hides power inside private banks and debt contracts. The NEED Act would make that power visible, public, and democratically allocable, not to eliminate power, but to relate to it as citizens, not as supplicants. That makes it the most vital prerogative of democratic self-governance.
Our 250-year anniversary is our opportunity to expose people to the vital history of the nation that has been left out of our nation’s history books. The colonies were in dire economic straights until they figured out the money. For a time more people were leaving than were arriving but after they figured out the money, they created enormous prosperity which got the attention of the British Lords. They saw wealth being created and they wanted it so they banned the colonial currencies, plunging the colonies into a depression. As Ben Franklin noted, that is what precipitated the revolution. Having been robbed of their prosperity the colonies then came together demanding their restoration and being rebuffed revolted.
How do we maintain One Nation without forcing One Model? The NEED Act answers:
1. Unity through shared money creation – Money is a public utility, not a private debt instrument. That creates a common foundation.
2. Diversity through decentralized allocation – 25% to states and localities means Texas can fund high-speed rail, Vermont can fund rural broadband, and Detroit can fund water infrastructure; no one model imposed from Washington.
3. Dignity through the dividend – Every citizen has direct purchasing power, reducing the zero-sum anxiety that fuels culture wars.
4. No debt, no interest, no scarcity-forcing – Because money is created as an asset, not loaned into existence, communities aren't forced into growth-at-all-costs or competitive austerity trying to pay the interest on their debts.
Very helpful response!