You are right about the numbers of Christians. And about 17% to 23% of the electorate in the US is libertarian according to Gallup. And yet they have no power and no real representation in government because the two main parties are those funded by the wealthy elite. Unless they got equivalent funding, they would go nowhere. After 300 years, Christians had grown to 10% of the population. Thanks to Constantine, they became 60% in a very short time. I think we do have the same information and choose to interpret it differently. That's what I like about substack, intelligent conversations.
Under your logic, the people in US suddenly divided themselves into two factions and they drive the political parties. Except that studies like the one from Cambridge University showed that over a 20-year period, almost all of the laws made by both political parties served wealthy special interests (businesses), not general special interests, nor the people. That would seem to be evidence that the political parties serve those who fund them, those who vote in the money election before the general election when we get to vote for the two people they have already chosen for us. I think they tell people what to believe through the media that they control rather than listen to the people. Of course, we are both speaking in generalities because specific situations can go either way.
But this is what life is all about. We each take in information and make a judgment call about what it means, and what is true and what isn't. And those are largely determined by our beliefs, which come from experience but also largely from indoctrinations that we are not even aware of. I've spent many years trying to surface those beliefs and examine them to consciously choose those that I want. But it's almost impossible to live outside of illusion because reality exists in our interpretations. And we each share our opinion on substack! 😊
Personal beliefs aside, I would be very interested in your feedback as to whether you think my new design for two primary government processes would yield better results for the people, or not, if you have the time to check out End Politics Now.
I think your proposal is interesting and could work in a vacuum, but at heart I'm an incrementalist and believe the fat tail risks of massive change typically outweigh the proposed benefits. I also tend to think our current system works pretty well, but due to negativity bias, most people believe overly negative and pessimistic narratives about our institutions. To the extent things are not working, we should change them incrementally, rather than believing the whole system is broken and needs to be restarted from scratch. The latter approach has a reasonably likely outcome of a failed state given the transition risks.
Interesting thoughts and metaphor. Here's an alternative and perhaps more negative interpretation. I'm not sure either one is correct or wrong. But here's something to consider.
The Christian movement was mostly underground and didn't really take off until Emperor Constantine of Rome made it the official religion and promoted it. Marxism only became powerful after it was backed by the wealthy elite of the time as Lily from a Lily Bit has done such a great job of explaining multiple times. I spent 2 years researching and writing a solution to the political divide. In looking for a root cause, it was clear to me that the divide is created by the political parties to differentiate themselves as other large businesses do. They want you to vote for the party based on ideology, not the candidate. Therefore, in all three cases it was the power, money, and influence behind each movement that made it successful.
My solution, a Collaborative Democracy, would not only solve the divide but it would give better national results and give everyone a voice. The major parts have been tried around the world and demonstrated to be better than current political processes. And yet, few people are even willing to read it, much less support it. It seems everyone wants to profit by talking about the political divide, but few want to actually solve it. Without a key influencer supporting my movement, it's clear that it will go nowhere. EndPoliticsNow.com
Interesting. I've spent a long time researching as well, and have come to basically the opposite conclusion :) The parties act the way they do because of underlying popular demand. Constantine only legalized Christianity because 10%-20% of the population was already Christian. The wealthy only backed Marxism because they could see the mass appeal it had. To affect outcomes, the underlying demand (i.e., popular will and attitudes) need to be changed, not the downstream institutions. In my opinion you're reversing cause and effect.
You are right about the numbers of Christians. And about 17% to 23% of the electorate in the US is libertarian according to Gallup. And yet they have no power and no real representation in government because the two main parties are those funded by the wealthy elite. Unless they got equivalent funding, they would go nowhere. After 300 years, Christians had grown to 10% of the population. Thanks to Constantine, they became 60% in a very short time. I think we do have the same information and choose to interpret it differently. That's what I like about substack, intelligent conversations.
Under your logic, the people in US suddenly divided themselves into two factions and they drive the political parties. Except that studies like the one from Cambridge University showed that over a 20-year period, almost all of the laws made by both political parties served wealthy special interests (businesses), not general special interests, nor the people. That would seem to be evidence that the political parties serve those who fund them, those who vote in the money election before the general election when we get to vote for the two people they have already chosen for us. I think they tell people what to believe through the media that they control rather than listen to the people. Of course, we are both speaking in generalities because specific situations can go either way.
But this is what life is all about. We each take in information and make a judgment call about what it means, and what is true and what isn't. And those are largely determined by our beliefs, which come from experience but also largely from indoctrinations that we are not even aware of. I've spent many years trying to surface those beliefs and examine them to consciously choose those that I want. But it's almost impossible to live outside of illusion because reality exists in our interpretations. And we each share our opinion on substack! 😊
Personal beliefs aside, I would be very interested in your feedback as to whether you think my new design for two primary government processes would yield better results for the people, or not, if you have the time to check out End Politics Now.
I think your proposal is interesting and could work in a vacuum, but at heart I'm an incrementalist and believe the fat tail risks of massive change typically outweigh the proposed benefits. I also tend to think our current system works pretty well, but due to negativity bias, most people believe overly negative and pessimistic narratives about our institutions. To the extent things are not working, we should change them incrementally, rather than believing the whole system is broken and needs to be restarted from scratch. The latter approach has a reasonably likely outcome of a failed state given the transition risks.
If you haven't read it, as the solution is unique, why would you say it could work in a vacuum? It is designed to work at the current federal scale.
Interesting thoughts and metaphor. Here's an alternative and perhaps more negative interpretation. I'm not sure either one is correct or wrong. But here's something to consider.
The Christian movement was mostly underground and didn't really take off until Emperor Constantine of Rome made it the official religion and promoted it. Marxism only became powerful after it was backed by the wealthy elite of the time as Lily from a Lily Bit has done such a great job of explaining multiple times. I spent 2 years researching and writing a solution to the political divide. In looking for a root cause, it was clear to me that the divide is created by the political parties to differentiate themselves as other large businesses do. They want you to vote for the party based on ideology, not the candidate. Therefore, in all three cases it was the power, money, and influence behind each movement that made it successful.
My solution, a Collaborative Democracy, would not only solve the divide but it would give better national results and give everyone a voice. The major parts have been tried around the world and demonstrated to be better than current political processes. And yet, few people are even willing to read it, much less support it. It seems everyone wants to profit by talking about the political divide, but few want to actually solve it. Without a key influencer supporting my movement, it's clear that it will go nowhere. EndPoliticsNow.com
Interesting. I've spent a long time researching as well, and have come to basically the opposite conclusion :) The parties act the way they do because of underlying popular demand. Constantine only legalized Christianity because 10%-20% of the population was already Christian. The wealthy only backed Marxism because they could see the mass appeal it had. To affect outcomes, the underlying demand (i.e., popular will and attitudes) need to be changed, not the downstream institutions. In my opinion you're reversing cause and effect.