Goals and Progress

I have put together a list of what I believe to be the goals of the Interactive Sovereign Society, and the progress made toward those goals.  Given that the ISS is a democratic society, of course if the membership does not democratically agree to pursue these goals, or if the collective choice of goals changes, then this may not be a definitive or complete list.  However, at present, I do not know of any members that do not agree that these are goals They would wish to see progress on.

GOALS

  • increasing the number of People who have experienced an interactive electoral system – The interactive electoral system is a way of choosing an elected official, in which each voter may cast their vote whenever They wish, and change their vote at any time after that.  Throughout the experience of several hundred People who have already tried participating in this system, it has been demonstrated to be more stable, less costly to implement, and of course more accountable than the practice of periodic elections.  The most effective way by far to have this idea perpetuated is to increase the number of participants in this system so that its power to unite People in their collective decision making abilities can be demonstrated.  The only present way to participate in an interactive electoral system is to become a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society.  Therefore, increasing the membership in the ISS is a goal.  However, if another organisation, such as a sports club or arts club or charity organisation, were induced to use this system in choosing their coordination team, then that would be equally effective.  Therefore, it is also a goal of the ISS to communicate with other organisations that must collectively make decisions such as how their funds are allocated, and ask Them to consider adopting this more fair and more dependable form of choosing such positions as president.
  • having the society’s sovereignty recognised and respected – The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to vote in an election of the members of a legislative assembly.  The Crown, which most Canadians consider to be their government, provides legislative assemblies for which this right may be exercised on one day, and is then denied for as much as four years.  The Interactive Sovereign Society is a legislative assembly that never denies this right, at any point in time.  Therefore, according to the Canadian Charter, ISS members have the right not to be governed by Crown legislative assemblies, since They are instead consensually responsible to a legislative assembly which does not deny the right that the Crown claims to guarantee.  Achieving this sovereignty for the society should be possible through Canadian courts, since those courts claim to recognise the Canadian Charter as their highest law.  If the Crown begins using the interactive electoral system to choose officials elected to its legislative assemblies, then there may be no further need for Interactive Sovereign Society members to pursue recognition of their society’s sovereignty, but until that happens, sovereignty is a shared goal of all ISS members.  If the ISS finds members in nations other than Canada, then the commitments that those nations have made to being free and democratic may be assessed, to find other means of helping those ISS members achieve recognition and respect for their sovereignty within the territories where those nations reside.
  • developing the society’s laws to be appealing to new members – There are two important features of laws.  First, People agreeing to accept those laws must find them to be reasonable rules to follow.  Second, People protected by those laws must believe that any One else willing to follow those laws is thus displaying conduct that may always be welcomed in society.  The ISS goes one step further, as its Constitution recognises that “sovereignty can never be truly realised without love, trust, and mutual respect between Those who assert their sovereignty”.  This implies that laws aren’t meant just to prevent any One from doing harm to any One else.  Laws, according to the ISS, are further intended to foster love, trust, and respect between Those who share them.  ISS laws are written in the summation of principles, and these are the conditions that People agree to upon becoming ISS members.  If any One who might consider membership is not willing to agree to adhere to the conduct described in the Summation of Principles, then the society should consider revising the Summation of Principles to make it more appealing.  This helps accomplish the society’s other goal of gaining new members.  In some ways, ISS laws may ask for a greater responsibility out of participants, such as certain aspects of the principles asking members to empower marginalised People and to pursue excellence in their abilities.  ISS members might like to see all other People agree to uphold these laws, but ISS members can no more force these laws on Others than any government may justifiably force its laws on the sovereign People of the ISS.  The beauty of ISS laws lie in the pride members take in their belief that these laws are part of what make a human Being great.
  • assuring that ISS laws are respected – If any One, whether an ISS member or not, believes that an ISS member is not adhering to the ISS Summation of Principles, then the ISS has judges (actually known as judicial panel chairs in the ISS) who may be approached to hear the details of the conduct and bring the society to an agreement as to whether the allegations are accurately founded.  Membership may be terminated, which nullifies any reasonable claim of sovereignty by the individual, because any One who will not adhere to the laws that they claim to have consensually chosen has demonstrated a lack of ability to choose laws, the most essential quality of a sovereign individual.  This would of course justifiably make Them governable by the Crown.  The more judges the society has, the easier it is for non-members to find some One approachable and available that is willing to hear grievance against a member.  The more People are familiar with the ISS Summation of Principles, the more assurance there is that ISS members will be held to adhere to those principles by People who understand those principles.

PROGRESS

  • increasing numbers – The ISS has grown to 29 members from the 3 that started it over two years ago.  This is a process that requires a great deal of patience, but it is also a process that is relentless and assured to prevail.  The sooner this process starts to snowball, the sooner the damage being done to our world, and the People We share it with, by a badly outdated form of social structuring that has clearly demonstrated itself not to provide an assured future for Humanity, may be reduced.  Your help would be appreciated, and membership in the ISS comes with the opportunity for a new experience and absolutely no obligations other than adhering to the Summation of Principles.
  • sovereignty – A case has been made in the Federal Court of Canada to argue the sovereignty of the ISS.  This case was discontinued with the intention to be addressed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  The reasons for this decision should be discussed with the society’s prime representative if more information is desired.  Plans to continue this action are underway.  Sometimes winning a court case requires more than just being justified and correct.  Sometimes it requires an obvious presence of a number of People who recognise that justification and that truth.  Sometimes courts will not follow laws if there is pressure from more powerful interests to ignore the law.  Sometimes it is better to wait until support is mounted before pursuing a case.  Sometimes it takes thousands.  Sometimes it takes dozens.  This will happen when it happens.
  • developing ISS laws – The ISS has only amended its laws on a handful of occasions in the last two years, and there is presently no outstanding dissatisfaction with how those laws are written.  However, if You would assume for the benefit of the doubt that your government has no justifiable right to impose its laws upon ISS members, and imagine the possibility that members of your government may actually recognise this at some point, then read the ISS Summation of Principles and imagine People only being held to the laws written in it.  If You believe that, in this eventuality, this is not a sufficient standard of conduct to require of People in the land where You reside, then help the ISS improve our Summation of Principles by suggesting what else You would like to see People required by law to uphold.  If We don’t meet your satisfaction right now, then We believe that, with your help, We will.
  • respecting ISS laws – Following the principles of the Interactive Sovereign Society is quite different from following the laws of a government.  There is a great deal more room for interpretation.  This can mean more leniency may be asked in forgiving one’s conduct.  However, it can also mean more responsibility can be asked by the members in following those principles with more conscientiousness and effectiveness than is outlined by a cumbersome and bureaucratic system of laws made by a government, that is often unfair and inconsistent, with little room for flexibility.  Members report improvement in their motivation to act lawfully of their own accord based on principles of respecting Others rather than due to threat of punishment.  ISS laws have a great deal of similarity to the laws of the nation in which an ISS member resides, but are not identical.  As awareness of the ISS and its laws spreads, then the ability of the ISS to demonstrate that its members respect good laws, and that its members can thus be accepted as supportive and reasonable co-occupants of a land in which a nation resides, will grow stronger.

National governments

Have You ever considered whether, and to what extent, You may have been subject to indoctrination throughout your life?  If You ever have been indoctrinated, then Noam Chomsky would describe You as an “unwilling or unwitting instrument” in propagating dysfunctions that have been imbued in our society (You might want to read his whole article).

The most fundamentally destructive doctrine to Humanity today may well be the one that alleges that a nation has the right to govern every occupant in an entire land, whether They consent to that nation’s form of governance or not.  For example, First Nations People have treaty rights by which their claim to their land is lawfully justifiable, and yet these rights are frequently blatantly violated (see here for a list of examples) by corporations, aided by governments like Canada’s.  People indoctrinated with the belief that their government has the right to govern every person in their land don’t usually consider the possibility that They have ever been indoctrinated.  This makes it tough to get Them to consider the damages that They and large numbers of co-indoctrinatees collectively cause, often more by inactions than by deliberate actions.  Teaching People to consider these issues, and their role in them, helps reduce the harms caused by their nations, which appear to be threatening the very ability of the planet to sustain human life.

The fear that People feel when faced with the possibility of their nation not having the right to govern every occupant of their land is that there can then exist lawless People who are not provided any consequences to their actions when those actions are unfair to Others.  To get past this fear, it is important to realise that there is generally no crime committed when their nation governs any One who does not have their own laws.  Living lawlessly is not justifiable.  To have one’s own laws, One must have a Constitution as the highest source of laws to which One is responsible, shared with Others who have also agreed to share it.  For instance have a look at this.

When People have their own complete, concise way of portraying their commitment to adhere to a standard of lawful conduct for the benefit of their fellow human Beings, then wishing your government imposed upon Them is aiding and abetting a crime, an unlawful act, if your government alleges itself to be democratic. If your government alleges itself to be democratic, then that means that your government attempts to act in a way that includes your wishes in choosing its actions, and therefore You are lawfully accountable for your wishes as You express them. You have a responsibility to look at how some One who does not consent to being governed by your nation defines their laws, and find reasonable criticisms of those laws before You may be justified in wishing your nation imposed on Them.

Doing the above steps is a reasonable way to acknowledge that perhaps your nation does not have the right to impose its laws upon every One in the entire land while still retaining the ability to instigate negotiation and compromise when You don’t believe that some One else’s laws are sufficient for You to feel protected, respected, or treated fairly.  Any One who claims to have their own set of chosen laws, concisely and completely expressed, has an innate responsibility to give You the time to express your views regarding whether You are satisfied with their laws and whether their conduct has been in accordance with those laws. This is the fundamental seed to begin thwarting the insidious form of indoctrination that every nation in the world has planted in vast numbers of people’s minds.