Name: Jos (pic), Johannes Harm Boersema יש - יהנש הרם ברשםה 约斯 布勒思马 Home: N 53°14'43" E 6°36'4" (pic) (pic) (street side alert) Born: 22 Nisan 5734 [04/14/1974] 01:05 CEsT (Hebrew Calender = okay) Groningen (pic) (pic) School: Vrije-school, VWO, SVS schoonmaker diploma (finally something useful). Fail: university Hobby: science, programming, making-the-world-better, (pic) (pic) (pic) Usenet-discussions, posts: copied to www.socialism.nl/post, archived on dejanews, Anti-ID-theft verification, blog. I'm particularly proud of my sede program, which is hopefully the waited for break in e-democracy technology. As far as I know it is the strongest and most versatile system, and the only free-software system which is successful and general (all) purpose. This project I started with great zeal to get it done as soon as possible, under maximum pressure. The world won't wait forever, if nothing progressive comes through, the initiative will fall to the side of dictatorship and suffering (in the world that is). It has been said by free software people, that all great advances come from laziness. This is certainly true in this case: if I have to demonstrate every time the governments etc make mistakes, then I better start living on the city square from now on, permanent demonstration. Just voting using technology, and one action to make the Government (law) comply, it is so much less work. Then I'm also extremely proud of my constitution. That effort was the result of a life-long (that's only about 30 years, though) thinking about what in detail is wrong with the world. The theory of Technical Darwinism is another result in that area, which should be able to comfortably replace every religion as a core moral theory (!) (I'm also proud on that one ;-). So far all these advances are being ignored (most of the time), which is definitely a good sign. This Constitution, it is a worked out system flowing from the 4 basic elements a trade economy needs. I first thought: here are the 4 principles, now people will make their Constitution easily. Of course that won't happen that easily, so, according to good programmers logic `everything that the programmer can do, the programmer should do' I quickly wrote the basic Constitution, almost 1 chapter a day. It is surprisingly easy to write a Constitution if you know what you want. I don't want to imagine how laborious it must be if you don't, but with a basic picture in mind and some common sense, writing a Constitution is much easier then programming computers. Then it is a matter of perfecting the details, I think it is coming along rather well, maybe the future will one day tell if it is a good system or not, and where it needs to be improved further. Surprise: it is the same core system Moshe (Rabbeinu) developed or passed-on as Torah , somewhere around the year 2550 (in the real calendar, not the needless re-count from zero in the year 3760). With the Constitution comes the method of implementation, like with a plan for a building comes a totally different but essential building plan. This revolutionary theory is also worked out into the smallest of details, right down in what street people will meet to organize the Government. That's a plan that is less science and more politics, but given basic sound principles it is reasonably unlikely to go wrong too much (1. wait until global robust majority support, 2. do not organize in mass organizations, but many minority groups that cooperate but remain independent, all with the same essential goal of law, 3. patience, let the enemy implode itself, argue and their lies should fall through, forever thinning support for their deceptions, 4. remain unpredictable, don't be drawn into premature battles, don't follow single people that you don't understand. Basically: follow the lessons of the centuries of revolution and popular pressure that we have behind us.).  That is: the Torah (books of Mozes) seems to also contain the same essential elements as my Constitution proposal, the same principles that a trade economy needs (power equality for fair prices, which leads to: no lending for profit motive, distribution of land, non-exploitive governance which implies democracy). Both contain different laws as well: my design has no "corner for the poor" but has a law for minimum wage. Torah or Tenach describes a different method of choosing a King/leaders. So I see both different in detail, but quite essentially and extensively the same in goal and intention. I haven't yet studied the Mishnah (Kehati), but it should be interesting. Jobs: all kinds of low paying, office cleaner (SVS certified) Encountered Debian/GNU/Linux: 1999 (Started learning myself programming in Qbasic in 1998, then C, which is of course my favorite language; such a well designed and defined little thing, isn't it. It took more then a year to regain faith in computers after having had to study on a certain unnamed alternative "system." Unix: zsh, vim, mail, slrn, lynx, man, Debian/GNU/Linux (please take more time to release another version, this one already works great.)) The value of a type of work is clearest when it is left undone. When workers rule their companies: productivity goes up, care for the company goes up (predictably), that is what experience has shown. What does that mean for `dictatorial management' type "work" (bullshitting is more like it): it produces damage. How much longer ? Paul Foot: ``The ruling-class fear of strikes goes even deeper than the fear that they might lose an isolated conflict or two. Anyone who has ever been involved at any level in strike action can testify to the enormous changes it inspires in the workers involved. More often than not, the workers who in the normal course of events are the most conservative and docile become in times of strikes the most radical. Far more than any law or any promise of a law, such action leads people to ask questions about power in society. Why are we doing the work we are told to do ? Why are our employers - men and woman like the rest of us - honoured, feted and paid such ridiculous `remuneration' ? Who decides these things and why do they decide them ? All of the ludicrous prejudices of capitalist societies, racism, sexism and the rest, are suddenly subject to question. The industrial and service chieftains and their bankers understand this threat every bit as clearly as the strikers. They bend every power at their disposal in the media and the courts, if necessary in the police and army, to stamping out that threat. Even 30 years after their last notable successes, the influence of strikes is still fundamental. Though of course there have been other manifestations of popular protest - the poll-tax demonstrations of 1990 and the huge anti-war protests of 2002 and 2003 are obvious examples - the transforming power of strikes and trade union action remains supreme. Common to all this resistance has been a yearning for a new democracy.'' `The Vote - How it was won and how it was undermined,' page 439. A new democracy. Our problem has been that we had no design, we had not enough theory to make it real. The market-proponents don't see the problem with private finance and resource-ownership (`means of production') anarchy, yet they support the markets for good reason. The anti-capitalists don't see why the markets are necessary and essential, and though they've supported every measure that is necessary in a stable new democracy in isolation when it seemed progressive - which it was - they have not embraced the principle of free markets. Free markets that they reject for good reason, but reasons based on symptoms, not reasons flowing from principle. This way we have been divided. This division has ended for whomever supports or understands a design which has both free markets for their good principles, yet does away with private Capital investment. Not we need to be divided: we need to understand that markets are divided in a good and a bad part, despite every attempt by the Investors to paint themselves as a natural part of `the markets.' The productive markets of services and goods on the one hand, which we can henceforth democratize per company, and the speculation with money and ownership of natural resources (`means of production') on the other, which we should nationalize and bring under the Law, to distribute them fairly. That is the new democracy that we yearn for, and it is about time we make it happen. We can not wait forever. We should stop holding ourselves back, because nobody else can. But first things first: thinking is one, refinement two, doing three. We are the workers of the world, we know how to make things. Details are not just important, they are essential. Who is kidding himself ? It's not a war, because there are no significant divisions necessary. It is a great Construction project on a world scale. We can go all the way, and it will work. End design here, theory here, strong/medium methods here, soft method here. This soft method is a way to reform the system, which can be done by a small group to begin with, no strikes or even revolutions necessary. If it then grows and is pursued by enough people, some results should come out (hopefully), and society could roll over into the End design, with less effort and trouble (medium method.) One of the things this requires is for people to come to understand economics and trade, which is something that people seem very reluctant to do. The right to be ignorant is something people hold unto dearly enough to halt progress. It is a right that those in power are all too happy not to interfere with. Fortunately economics from scratch is not that difficult. It only seems that way because of the mis-education presented in the schooling systems who do not teach objective economics, but rather merely regurgitate the mechanics of our failed systems. The habbitual esteem to all the things working classes do not understand prevents them from charging ahead and re-define the world properly. Not unlikely the working classes project their own professionalism and the rigors from leadership they are subjected to unto the leaders of society, apparently unaware that these leaders do not face the same disciplinary rigors themselves. The book/texts I made (law/system) should make all this easier. Only an objective economics has to be verified as being correct, removing the need for a long winding creative process to reach the needed results.