[MG] Wise Use of Funds Raised

Ned Conner npconner at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 18 22:02:54 EDT 2013


Hi Mark,

    Mark> The freemasons are fine. But a huge supporting group if you
    get their approval. Politically or financially.

This I understand. Yes. Any such group of the public sphere, of like 
mind, would be good to have on board with the plans and projects. The 
more the merrier.

    Mark> Now to become soveriegn is a nice thing. It let's you start
    with a clean slate. 

Ed and I are interested in hearing about the hows and gotchas of 
establishing one or more new sovereign states, that would exist and 
operate outside the jurisdiction of existing states. As you say, each 
new state would indeed start with a clean slate, as if the founders had 
just landed at a cyberspace version of Plymouth Rock.

    Mark> Now the type of soveriegn state would be to let the individual
    retian its soveriegnty while abiding to the guidelines of law
    prefferably to the declaration of human rights. Its an international
    guideline system. 

As to the norms and inner workings of each newly created sovereign 
state, we the people in it (founders and joiners) would be continually 
determining those -- yes?

For example, in one of the new states, it might be decided that we 
wanted to charter no corporations, to have no copyright or patent 
monopolies, to have our own open source public bank with its own 
currency, our own open source clones for eBay, Paypal, Kickstarter, our 
own learning systems, and so on.

Initially, each new state might exist and operate solely in cyberspace. 
Eventually (at the point that a particular cyber-state had become 
popular enough in national populations), the new state might be able to 
establish treaty relations with the nations, that would enable sovereign 
landparcel-based existence and operation. At that point, the new state 
would no longer be just a cyber-state.

 From the perspective of international law, would it be possible to 
create such states? If so, what would it involve, and what pitfalls 
would there be?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6/18/2013 5:45 AM, Mark Giza wrote:
>
> The freemasons are fine. But a huge supporting group if you get their 
> approval. Politically or financially. Now to become soveriegn is a 
> nice thing. It let's you start with a clean slate.
> It may be something you can get others to pay to join.
> But political alliance is essential.  Even if you plan on dumping them 
> later. Now all the major players in the world are dividing and 
> conquering. They want the us to dissolve. So if they gain support in 
> that matter they will support you.
> But it also gives you something to sell. And the united states is not 
> open to new political parties.
> Now the type of soveriegn state would be to let the individual retian 
> its soveriegnty while abiding to the guidelines of law prefferably to 
> the declaration of human rights.
> Its an international guideline system.
> But that way unless someone is doing something way wrong they retain a 
> sense of freedom. Without having to worry about these little laws that 
> cost a lot of money.
> So its just my input.
> As far as masons go...
> What's a mason? U mean like a stone mason? ;-)
>
> On Jun 17, 2013 7:18 PM, "Ned Conner" <npconner at earthlink.net 
> <mailto:npconner at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ed and Mark -- Great Posts!
>
>     Ed, I am right there with you in understanding that it is all
>     about resources. Some of us have funds available to donate; some
>     of us feel called to work on new governance systems, and do so to
>     the extent that we are able (self-supported and/or donation
>     supported). More resources would be a very good thing. As you say,
>     the window of danger and opportunity is upon us.
>
>     Setting up an American non-profit corporation and then funding it
>     through grants and such is a common model, and can work. Worth a
>     shot if there is evidence that it might. Beyond that, there are
>     also other funding models that can work (as you probably know much
>     better than I). Brainstorming with a range of potential donors
>     might be useful. (Brainstorming with potential recipients of
>     donations, or with middle-man agents of donors (foundations,
>     etc.), would probably be less useful -- the donors are the drivers.)
>
>     Because the work that we are doing (towards true democracy, etc.)
>     is not really in the self-serving best interests of the Carnegies
>     and Rockefellers and Mellons, or their agents, formality may not
>     be our friend when it comes to finding funding. New paradigms
>     become attractive (to independent donors, developers, and
>     participants) when those working within the paradigm are having
>     the most fun, and making the best progress.
>
>     Mark, I very much agree that it would be a good idea for us to set
>     up a new sovereign state sort of entity (not geographically
>     defined -- global in reach), and have our new governance systems
>     operate in that context. To me, "run parallel and render obsolete"
>     seems a much better strategy than "try to compete directly within
>     rotten and rigged systems".
>
>     I confess that I didn't follow your references to the freemasons
>     and such, but this particular thread may not be the appropriate
>     place to have that discussion. You are the one in the best
>     position to know how you can help. If you have proposals that you
>     could make (with specificity and particularity), that would be
>     great, and I and others could respond.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     On 6/17/2013 8:30 AM, Mark Giza wrote:
>
>
>         Did you ever think composing it as a soveriegn state?
>         Now a lot of soveriegners get looked down upon.
>         I have been speaking very highly of this system.
>         Actually I had the idea to do it years ago and was pleased to
>         see your group had already done the footwork.
>         Now realize the united states is diminishing collection of
>         states and corporations.
>         So basically its like trying to invest in amway. That time has
>         passed. Its a ghost ship.
>         Now to get approval from the freemasons.
>         You need to seperate yourself but promote ideas they are
>         trying to accomplish currently.
>         Like the north american union.
>         So basically establish your own state.
>         Offer people a clean slate and new identity when they join.
>         The united states wouldn't like that but if you play your
>         cards right and support the new world order at this time they
>         will look at it as a supporting state.
>         I have put tons of time into this.
>         I have lots of support from the anonymous organization.
>         So when you establish your own state which is just a matter of
>         paperwork and I would be honored to help with.
>         I would consider helping 100% with your movement.
>         United states is a dying dog. Nothing more.
>         They are deliberatly destroying the economy to force the
>         public into buying into the north american union.
>         Which is fine with me. The us is on autopilot for desteuction.
>         But if you establish yourself as a friendly state.
>         Support the masonic views and lead on to helping them
>         accomplish a common goal. I'm sure it won't be a problem using
>         the Amero as the new currency to finance your project.
>         I have about ten years of research of creating new states and
>         international law.
>         Let me know if your interested.
>         Ttyl
>         Namaste
>
>         On Jun 17, 2013 7:45 AM, "Ed Pastore"
>         <epastore at metagovernment.org
>         <mailto:epastore at metagovernment.org>
>         <mailto:epastore at metagovernment.org
>         <mailto:epastore at metagovernment.org>>> wrote:
>
>             Hi, Ned. The idea I have been floating on the Votorola list is
>             just that: an idea I'm mulling over. I brought it up
>         prematurely
>             because of the post Rhett had made there. But it is all about
>             resources.
>
>             Currently, the resources I have available for Metagov are tiny
>             scraps of time I manage to eke out between the heavy
>         demands of my
>             job, my business, and caring for a sick family-member.
>
>             I would prefer for Metagov to be my full-time job, but the
>         only
>             practical way for me to make that happen is to organize it
>         as an
>             American non-profit corporation. Then I could work up to
>         spending
>             significant amounts of time writing grant proposals to
>         foundations
>             in the hopes of building up a treasury which we could then
>         use to
>             fund publicity efforts as well as to fund coding projects
>         (plus I
>             could work on making back-end improvements such as
>         expanding on
>             the limitations of the list server).
>
>             I've repeatedly floated the idea of creating a formal
>             organization, but I've had a lot of trouble with the idea of
>             making it an American company. It just seems wrong for our
>         group
>             to be tied to one country. Especially the United States, where
>             relatively few of our members reside and where the tax
>         laws are
>             intrusive and burdensome. There's also a lot of legal work
>         to be
>             done to figure out if we can create a non-profit which is
>         governed
>             not by a board of directors but by collaborative
>         governance. On
>             the other hand, the U.S. is the place where a large bulk
>         of the
>             moneyed foundations reside; and generally they only fund
>         American
>             non-profits ("501c3's").
>
>             Rather than figuring out what to do with the scarce
>         resources we
>             have now, I would love the opportunity to grow them into a
>         more
>             formidable stash. I am open to ideas, suggestions, alternative
>             thinking, etc.
>
>
>             On Jun 16, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Ned Conner wrote:
>
>                 There is an active thread over on the Votorola
>             listserv that is
>                 raising many important issues for discussion:
>                 *A New Party Dedicated to Implementing Public Voting*.
>
>                 The root links to the thread are:
>             http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001748.html
>             http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001753.html
>             http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001749.html (and
>                 following)
>
>                 As often happens when we try to use listserv platforms for
>                 rational discourse, the thread started out as a specific
>                 invitation from Rhett Pepe to Michael Allen, and has since
>                 morphed into a wide-ranging informal conversation
>             between Michael
>                 Allen and Ed Pastore. (As an aside, to effectively and
>                 efficiently support decision making through rational
>             discourse,
>                 we need a system that features professional profiling and
>                 automatic multi-threading of each unit and sub-unit of the
>                 discourse, and that structurally, procedurally, reliably,
>                 transparently connects the discourse outcome to the
>             decision
>                 outcome. Blinap alone among all extant decision system
>             designs
>                 provides these features. The listserv platform has
>             none of these
>                 features.)
>
>                 Below is a list dealing with one issue, extracted from the
>                 thread, of aims and values and objectives and
>             strategies, with my
>                 addition appended.
>
>                     * Rhett wants to start a new (mixed-format)
>             political party
>                       (and run for city council), as a means to infiltrate
>                       Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy.
>                     * Ed wants freedom from representation.
>                     * Ed wants consensus-oriented direct democracy.
>                     * Ed is also (like Rhett) considering founding a
>             mixed-format
>                       party, as a stepping stone.
>                     * Ned thinks that using our scarce resources to
>             directly
>                       compete against entrenched powers (that have
>             vastly more
>                       resources) on their own turf (in our currently
>             existing
>                       polyarchies) would be a monumental waste of our
>             scarce
>                       resources. We can more quickly and efficiently
>             create a
>                       more effective global "bully pulpit" if we do
>             not engage in
>                       the utter waste of competing directly (creating
>             political
>                       parties, running for office, buying advertising,
>             funding
>                       political campaigns, etc.).
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>             http://www.metagovernment.org/
>                 Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>             <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>             <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org
>             <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>>
>                 Manage subscription:
>             http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>         http://www.metagovernment.org/
>             Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>         <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>         <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org
>         <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>>
>             Manage subscription:
>         http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>         http://www.metagovernment.org/
>         Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>         <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>         Manage subscription:
>         http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>     http://www.metagovernment.org/
>     Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>     <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>     Manage subscription:
>     http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>



More information about the Start mailing list