Article of incorporation:

I, the undersigned, do upon signing express a willingness and commitment to the following values and actions:

-The value of determining and participating in a truly uncoerced democratically-based decision making process that includes all people everywhere.

-The value of allowing people to not do things that they have personal moral objection to. (This includes valuing people's being free to develop a means whereby they may be nonparticipants in commerce.)

-The action of not participating in commerce or contributing to it in any way, when the proper conditions (conditions which are to be determined by me) to allow this to happen have been met.
and,

-The value of not misrepresenting myself. (This pertains to any statement I make about my nonparticipation in commerce.)

Signed by me here,______________________________.
Signed on this date,_____________________________.

Emancipation Postulation
What am I to do to help end abusiveness and suffering? How am I to help the unfortunate and oppressed? The domination over land use is an old problem. The development of mass production and mass communication represent possibilities for human liberation, but these things are dominated over as well.

Domination itself is not unnatural. Survival of the fittest and of the most dominating seems to be throughout all material nature. Human compassion and sensitivity for the feelings of others seems to be the aberration in nature. It seems that asking how to end our problems is like asking how to change the basic character of the material universe. I do not think it's unreasonable to ask this question. I also think there is much improvement we can realize without having to ask seemingly unreasonable questions. I think there are pragmatic means by which the true democratic mandate of all people can be realized and executed.

There is an alternative to trading goods and services. There is an alternative way of relating to each other that is based on mutual trust and offering what we can. Money as a means of exchange is better than previous forms because it is more easily recognized by people to have specific value. But I think it is possible for people to not have to buy and sell. It is possible that people could develop a commonly understood principle of sharing and service, and that acting in accordance with this principle could simply become human nature. I know this sounds a bit like communism, but it's not. The arguments against this concept stem from legitimate concerns over individuals taking advantage of others and not contributing to the common welfare. I say to this that the human tendencies to take advantage of others and to not contribute to the common welfare are outgrowths arising from our oppressed and abused situation. When the means of freely sharing are truly available to people the tendencies to abuse each other and not help will diminish to such a small level that such occurrences could be easily dealt with. The way to deal with an individual who does not contribute is to compassionately absorb them. It's not sustainable that people should have to contribute to the common good. The meaningfulness of contribution is sufficient motivation for the vast majority of people. The way to deal with an individual who abuses and violates others is situation specific, but usually requires restraining that individual in some way. Restraint of those who would do harm is a difficult problem. It is a much more difficult problem now than it is likely to be when our common vision is more closely realized. I maintain that it is possible to compassionately restrain people, and possible to restrain them in ways that are appropriate for the specific situation. I maintain that it is possible to develop just and fair ways of determining who to restrain, and how to restrain them.

Imagining a situation where people live as I have described above is not really the problem. Lots of people have written wonderful descriptions of utopian societies. It is a given that through democratic process greater visions can yet be realized. The vision is not the problem. Transition from the state we are in currently to the envisioned state is the real problem. The reason transition from our current state is such a problem is because our current state is one of tyrannical domination by diabolical people who have completely forfeited their humanity in order to gain and maintain power. Many people do not want to consider this possibility. Many people want to imagine that it's all a big mistake, that the world powers are fallible and prone to human frailty, but still trying to do the right thing. I see it as irrational and irresponsible to maintain the idea that the people in power are trying to do what is best. I think the only responsible and personally honest perspective is that those people in the positions of highest power in the world are there because they are willing and able to do whatever is required of them to gain and maintain that power. The phrase 'whatever is required' is what makes this statement most terrifying. When power is the only objective, treachery and violence must be quickly embraced as means to that end. If one does not embrace such means they will be dominated over by others who do embrace them. This is the problem we face in trying to transition from our current state into our envisioned state.

As we who choose not to forfeit our humanity develop more tightly knit fabrics of communication there will likely come a point where the majority of people realize what gross inhumanity we are up against and also what must be done to implement and enforce a truly democratic process. It is likely that as we prepare to implement this process the powers that be will react with horrific violence, to try and stop it. This situation may be happening on small scales right now, like the violence against peaceful protesters. What we must do to prepare for this is develop a plan that we can have some relative agreement about. If we as the true majority act unitedly and swiftly at a given cue, then the outbursts of violent intimidation can be minimized. What we need is some specific plans. An outline for a course of action that is specific and complete in its scope.

I humbly aspire to offer such a plan to humanity. I know we need to use democratic process to develop it, but a plan has to start somewhere, so here goes. I'll give it a try.

Emancipation Postulation Two

Sorry to interject here but I just discovered these people and this web site. This stuff here is so right on I have to put it right up front here. Please Check out Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy.

This artical in particular offers a lot of great context and encouragement. The End of Agribusiness .

Here's another fantastic and importaint organized effort taking place. Please check it out!
"The International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (SIMPOL); a growing association of citizens worldwide who use their votes in a coordinated, effective way to drive all nations to co-operate in solving our planetary crisis. SIMPOL goes beyond merely demanding greater political accountability by offering citizens a new way of restoring genuine democracy lawfully and peacefully, one vote at a time."

Thank you.

Emancipation Postulation 2

"Who am I" is a question that seems very important. But in some situations it seems like a very stupid question. If an inhumane attack is happening right in front of me and I have the means to subdue and restrain the attacker, asking myself 'who am I' seems really stupid. The magnitude of some situations demands immediate action. Sometimes, if a question of identity gets in the way of taking action, it is utter insanity. But the institutions of western civilization place inhumane demands on individuals, by forcing people to consider the identity of themselves and others before responding to what is happening. For instance, if a peaceful protester is being beaten and pepper sprayed by police, then an observer is expected to do nothing but record information. Actually, even just recording information could get an observer arrested. The identity that people and institutions have determines a set of rights and responsibilities. Identity awareness offers distinction of relationship. In western culture more and more it is clear that people and institutions are either identified as aiding and abetting the dominating 1% of the world population, or identified as working against the agenda of the dominating 1% of the world population. Popular culture communicates the following as being so: "If a person or institution is 'down with the corporate agenda' they are offered power, authority, and respect in society. If a person is not 'with the program' then they are disempowered, not taken seriously, and utterly dismissed." Many people have bought into this notion. Acting like these relationships are the way it is helps to make it the case. But I see another set of relationships that exist as well. The set of relationships I see are not about identity, or identifying with anything or anyone. The alternative set of relationships I see coexist with the identity-centered set because they are of a whole other order of meaning. People relate to each other according to what is happening. This simple reality is easy to overlook. It's easy to not realize the significance of it. Think about it for a moment. Identity has nothing to do with the reality that people react to what they see happening. The question of identity enters into the picture, but first and foremost it is action that results in action. Identity questions may result in inaction, and this is a good thing sometimes, but, as far as identity being a tool of oppression, it is empowering to see its limits. So, the question of identity has been used to manipulate people.

People in western cultures have inherited a situation that instills a high priority to the question of identity. The question of identity can be taken apart and understood in a way that offers power and freedom. The freedom to put the question of identity aside, and the power to be in action based on what is happening are the things I want. The following notion may offer these things.

What is most real, and who am I? These things are not certain. It may well be that the most real thing in existence is not physical reality so much as it is the reality that physical reality is the response to. Physical reality may be a function of relationships. Character, meaning the essence of what is most personal, may be the most fundamental reality. The essence of character is meaning. Things of meaning are what give someone character. A sense of humor, compassion for the less fortunate, and confidence in the value of one's individuality are components of character. These things are meaningful and held dear by people. It may well be that such things as these are more real that even physical reality. Character is not expressed or interpreted exactly the same by any two individuals. Physical reality seems much more reliable then human character. Consider that all people are essentially of good character. Consider that the conflicts among people are a product of conflicts between what people have inherited. People have inherited both genetic predispositions, and situations. It is not hard to imagine that inheritance may account for all differences in expression of character. Considering this might help instill a sense of compassion toward all people. The place where people run into trouble with this is that individuality is a highly valued character trait. This is why I go a step farther and say not just differences, but 'differences which generate conflict with good character' are the root of people's problems with each other. It is these differences I thus consider impersonal. Our differences in what we have inherited do not speak to anything that we have to take personally. It's not my fault if I have inherited the inclination to get drunk all the time. It's still my responsibility to try and overcome this inclination. Perhaps, however, it is by my own personal, noble character that I have the inclination to write inspiring ideas and share them with people. I do not know that any other lacks this character, only that I am blessed with the experience of it. This is a way of allowing the good to be both personal and universal, while allowing the bad to be both impersonal and situational. There is nothing irrational about it. In fact, it seems irrational to me to consider the notion that everything must either be personal or impersonal. Popular culture seems to be in one of these two camps, either claiming that all is one and differences are all illusions, or animalistically relating as if our bodies are the only real reality. There is charm to both of these notions. The “all is one” notion offers relief from personal blame and hope for universal goodness. The "being only the body" notion offers free licence to indulge any and all impulses, and hope for the absence of universal condemnation. Both camps can extend their perspectives to embrace both collective values and bodily indulgence for pragmatic reasons. However, both camps seem to deny a character trait that I hold dear. One denies the notion of me having a singularly unique character of precious value. The other denies the notion of universal meaningfulness that is consistent, reliable, and inheartening. Both perspectives can not be true, but elements of both perspectives may be true. It is the good characters, which each perspective aims to honor, which can coexist.

In summation it is my hypothesis that all people in western culture have inherited what amounts to an identity crisis. The answer is to focus on what is happening while not taking anything bad personally. This is possible to do if first, identity is seen as character honoring both individual goodness, and universal goodness; then, second, anything that is not in the first category is dismissed as a product of inherited circumstances. When identity is less of an issue then we are more free to be responding to what is happening. The magnitude of the situation calls for action.

Emancipation Postulation2.5

Compassionately restraining harmfulness regardless of identity is a policy I am proposing. The tricky part of implementing this policy is dealing with the question of when to subdue and restrain someone who is doing harm to another person. The reason this is a difficult question to answer is because subduing and restraining a single perpetrator of harm may result in enormous reactions and the amount of harm to people could be much greater after all is said and done. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to propose that gatherings of people petitioning for human rights should agree to disallow any harmful actions to people, regardless of the identity of the person or persons doing the harm. Duck tape might be the material tool of a peace keeper. I am proposing that we take the commitment to nonviolence a step farther to include disallowing violence when it is within our means to do so. Such a policy would have to be declared very clearly right up front or it would be unjust to those who may come to a gathering expecting the policy to still be one of passively allowing violence if it comes from governmental authority figures. The intention to disallow violence regardless of identity would have to be clearly declared on all announcements and notices for the gathering. The philosophical foundation behind the policy would need to be explained clearly or it could easily be misconstrued as something it is not. It is not about retaliation. The philosophical foundation for the policy could be summed up in just a few phrases: "All people are fundamentally of good character. Harmful actions come from peoples situations. Compassionately restrain harmfulness." The work of restraining harmfulness would be exacted upon both people who are participants in the gathering and any people who are in the presence of the gathering. The step to subdue and restrain a person would happen if the person was physically harming another person. If a person is verbally abusive there would be no action to restrain them but to reason with them to have compassion. If a simple noise maker could be used to drown out the sound of a person's voice that was being verbally abusive then this would be a good thing. The specific means by which subduing and restraining someone who is doing harm to others would have to be clearly explained. Perhaps it could go something like this: First, the odds must look like they are at least three to one in favor of those prepared to exact restraint upon a perpetrator of harm. Second, the perpetrator of harm will be verbally warned that any actions of harm will result in their being subdued and restrained. Third, if they do not stop harmful behavior they will be informed that they are being subdued and restrained. During the process of surrounding the perpetrator of harm and duck taping their limbs together, the restrainers must plead with the perpetrator of harm to allow them to restrain them without harm. The restrainers would use only the amount of restraint deemed necessary to keep the perpetrator of harm from doing any farther harm to others or self. Someone would then stay with the subdued and restrained person to make sure they were not victimized due to their vulnerable state.
This peace movement is one that calls each and every person to recognize within themselves and all others a profound dignity. We don't have to wait for people to evolve, we simply have to develop the realization that the majority of people are already mature and compassionate enough to make these ideas work.

So here is the plan, perhaps. Let's all do a big antiwar march on the anniversary of the Seattle WTO on the year when the time is right. And during this march (which happens three days late) let's start the 'real new/everpresent/oldest world order,' which is trusting each other and giving freely to each other what we can. At first this action would happen only within the confines of the established network of communities in agreement with each other. This would mean having our like minded people in place. That means in communication with each other and on a trusting relationship.
Accountability groups must be willing to develop themselves as more publicly accountable non-profit (or "not for profit") organizations. This can give them much greater authenticity. Perhaps through networks of communication between trusted activist organizations like Amnesty International this could happen without money having to be part of it.

By genuine demonstrations of the authenticity of humanity and integrity things are coming around. We are seeing that we can trust each other. Fears of each other can be laid to rest. All that's left to do is follow the sense of the goodness that inspires and inheartens.

I do not intend to suggest by offering these notions that acceptance of these notions is part of the plan. I only want to demonstrate in my openness to share my ideas that all of us openly sharing our ideas is part of the plan. In fact, all of the "plan" that I share is only a personal idea. The real plan will develop in the context of democratic process. I do not mean to suggest that democratic process is always the most certain way of bringing about what is best for all people, but it does seem to be the most fair way to go about our efforts.

To the next Emancipation Postulation essay
Wow! Thank you so much for reading all this.
I love you.