https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/a-chasidus-without-a-present-rebbe

Famously the Chabbad Rebbe said there should not be chosen another Rebbe
for this movement, because 'moshiach' would be the next Rebbe. The Rebbe
died in 1994 (year western), 5754 (year Jewish, short Egypt), ± 5973
(adjusted year Jewish, taking 430 years in Egypt).

Also famously at this point, is the idea by some Chabadnisk that the
Rebbe is 'moshiach'. The Rebbe is not moshiach. He is not alive. You can
also go to your own Alter Rebbe, who said 'moshiach' would be secular,
and not what you expect. The Rebbe is quite exactly what you expected. The Rebbe did not oppose the prozbul, there is an argument for you. Was his
life as painful as decribed in the prophets, was he hated and rejected
by his people ? Etc etc. Did the Rebbe Redeem the world ? Is theworld
filled with Justice and Peace right now, or getting their in a big way
thanks to specifically the Rebbe ? Well, not yet it seems ...

Anyway, the point of interest is the 'leadership' question. The first
thing which would come to my mind is: you have a King, He is your God.
You have your Torah, it is clear, you do not have to go over the sea or
into heaven to have it explained to you. Just go back to the 5 books of
Moshe Rabbeinu, or the entire Tanach, and that is the law upon which
there should be unity of mind (religiously speaking). Since Hillel the
Elder broke the Torah, you have to heal this attack, so there is unity
of the truth again. Unity as such is not good enough, it also needs to
be unity around the truth, which is the best form of unity because all
wise and good people will come together upon it sooner or later.

The evil ones also unite in their own way, which is their Tyranny and brutality. However, they ultimately should fail, because for humans the survival lies in peace & justice, forever. We are too powerful with our
toys to still wage war with them, and we don't need that at all, rather
it will destroy us. We end up destroyed with the evil, if we wage
offensive wars.

Anyway ... I was thinking a little about this leadership problem of
Chabad. Is it a matter of being an Army in a foreign land of enemies, so
that you require a General to make swift and good decisions, to survive ?
If the situation where so precarious that you are either at war or close
to it, I think there is a pretty good case for having a single man at
the top, because you just don't have the time for a lengthy debate and a
well weighed and muled over decision.

For example take the bridge here close by which was damaged by a ship. It
has been out of order for years, as the Government is slowly going through
the steps to make a decision. This bridge is now out of order for years (!)
It still had walkways around the sides (Korrewegbrug, Gerrit Krol brug, Groningen, Netherlands). Finally last week we got a temporary ramp for
cycling (which is great for me on the road bike). There have been plans
made and proposed, and then the neighborhood started to organize against
a high variant, then there seems to be a low variant and they chose a
middle high variant now it seems. It is taking years, and that's merely
a bridge, a bridge over one of the most busy cycling roads in the city.
15 000 people use that bridge daily, one Government website says.

https://gemeente.groningen.nl/gerrit-krolbrug
"Met ongeveer 15.000 fietsers die dagelijks de brug passeren, is het
een van de drukste fietsverbindingen van Groningen."


https://www.gic.nl/nieuws/boot-vaart-tegen-gerrit-krolbrug-schade-lijkt-enorm
"Een boot is vrijdagnacht tegen de Gerrit Krolbrug aangevaren."
15 mei 2021 08:01

It is now 17 jan 2024, and we still don't have a new bridge. This kind
of delay is unacceptable in a war. This kind of delay is even kind of
too much in a democratic society in my opinion, but on the other hand we
may get something very well designed out of it, where all interests have
been balanced. This is how long it can take to make a common decision.

Then I thought ... hey bingo, didn't I write a book about how to
organize ? How about applying that to Chabad ? The basic form is (but it
is adjustable): I will write it more generally, and then the exact
number in braces:

Step 1:

- A small group (10) of people;
- finds several (5) other such small groups;
- to create a Council (1) together;
- for which they choose a chair person (1),
- for which they choose a representative to represent them (1);
- for which they choose a reserve representative (1);
- and all these they choose are different persons, it may not be
combined in one person.
- Whoever is chosen can always be replaced any moment by those electing
that person, and this is true for the whole Council model.

Step 2:

- If the organization is large enough to have multiple (N) of these
so created Councils, the representatives (not the reserve
representatives) come together in Councils like in the first step.
They can form Councils themselves according to the need for having
such Councils. A likely scenario is the geographic separation
determining the need for separate Councils in different areas, however
it can also be separate councils based on something else (whatever you
want, and what makes sense; it can even be minhag if you want I guess).

When it concerns a Government (a Sovereignty), a minimum amount of
representatives (50) is necessary to form an authority of a local
Government.

Step 3:

- When the amount of representatives in a council becomes unwieldy,
the representatives may elect from between themselves second tier
representatives, by forming sections of variable but similar size.
Each section selects their second tier representative.
- All the representatives together form (as it where) the Parliament,
which you could call the most serious Government.

If this concerns a Sovereignty (highest Government in the land),
all the representatives together must vote upon what is to be law.
- All the representatives together, if an unwieldy large group, divide
into sections (N-50), to elect the highest body of the organization.

You see that the (large) size problem is dealt with by making the
section sizes of first tier representatives larger or smaller. The
(large) size problem is *not* dealt with by electing higher and higher
tiers of representatives, standing more and more elections away from
the base of the people. It is not allowed to elect third tier
delegates, by creating sections out of the second tier delegates.

The second tier delegates may appoint people for jobs to be done,
but the decisions and the power must rest with them and not those they
appoint. They themselves are naturally beholden and report to those
that elected them, who report to those that elected them, which are
the people. There is at maximum only two steps of elections: a person
elects someone as a representative, the representative may elect
someone with other representatives for the second tier, and there it
must stop. The reason is that if this string gets too long, control is
lost, human contact is lost (in my opinion). You can have a different
opinion of course, and could try to go for another tier, but it seems
unnecessary and worrysome (not that an experiment wouldn't be
interesting).

I think: keep it simple, enlarge only the directly beholden delegates
to any size needed. Simplicity is important. Complexity is a breeding
ground for confusion and corruption. People don't have time or energy to
constantly monitor the Government, and chase a loop of responsibility,
people pointing to each other. If someone feels they cannot do their
job in the system: step out, don't hide behind someone else's back,
don't create confusion and hide in the shadows.

There are several purposes an organization can have. The ones already
mentioned are an Army, another is the Sovereignty of a Nation. Then
there is a political organization, where you want only loyal people to
join you because otherwise you cannot express your will and enter the
debate with other such organizations. Another mode is a charitable
organization of some kind, or other casual civilian organization, where
anyone could join whatever their opinions and secondary activities
might be.

Also for the Army, this mode of organization works, although there is
one more step in that case: the representatives need to elect a top
commander for the Army. You have to have a commander in a war.

For a Sovereignty, the model also allows for the election of a King of
sorts, a head of State if you will. The election is a different story,
it is not elected by the above mentioned system. In short: the people
elect from a list of people who want to be King (or are pushed by people
who know them to make themselves electable, which we probably will see
quite a bit), and then everyone who is not in the top 10 elected will
give their votes to one of their choosing in the top 10. The one with
the most votes is then allowed (it is a bit convoluted, which has
reasons) to give all the votes which he has more than the number 2 most
popular in votes, to anyone in the Nation he wants. After all this, the
top 10 with the most votes become the Electoral Committee. (I had
to give it a name, right? Maybe you can do better.)

The Electoral Comittee orders general elections for the system of Councils
and Representatives (a general renewal of the mandates if you will). The
oldest person in the Electoral Committee becomes the King. The King
has no power, does not make Government decisions or law. He is merely
there as a singular person, who may speak if he wants (generally), but
has no special right to speak in any Council either. He can go to the
street and speak if he wants to, but cannot even be present in a Council meeting on whatever level of Government, unless allowed by the Council.
When the King is bearing his signs of office, however, you may not
address the King to his face, unless being allowed to do so. This is
because you have a King, because you do not listen to each other well
enough. You are unruly and lack discipline. Now you have a King, and
this office will teach you discipline. If you insult the King to his
face, do not show enough respect, you go to prison for a short while.
You have to learn respect and to listen carefully. Speaking you can
learn that in the Councils. The King from his end, has to demand the
necessary discpline from his people, and punish people who are badly
behaved, because that is why there is a King. He punishes you, because
he takes the trouble as a good father punishing his unruly child,
because he wants the child to learn and become a respectable man, a
respectable woman, who knows how to behave and has confidence in himself (herself), because he knows how to behave. He punishes you, because he
loves you, even if he feels bad you need to be punished. This is
probably the only duty the King has.

The King *may* (at his own decision) also rise to the office of
Sovereign Inspector, for which he needs to study the Constitution
intensely for one year, and also write upon the Constitution. To be
creative with the Constitution, so that you can see this is truly a work
of study for him (or her). If this is completed succesfully, the King
may inspect business and also Government departments, by surprise and
with all the necessary force. As an inspector he may only expose the
truth, and then provide the evidence to the Courts of Justice. He will
not rule nor punish, but only expose the truth. Thus he will be the
watcher who watches the watchers, and the people watch the watcher who
watches the watchers, because he is one.

As a charity or a political party, you do not require to have a King, I imagine. As an Army you do require a King, who is your commander. I
never thought about it, but you could also use the election system for a
King in the Army, rather than the Council model. The Army acts as a
Soverignty, it acts as a self contained Nation, or needs the ability to
do so, and swiftly. You could still also elect such an office if you
want, a singular head of sorts, who nevertheless does little else but
have opiions, which may be ignored. You could for example elect someone
using the mode of a King election, but not call the one so elected a
King, but rather a "Rebbe", because he is not a King over a Sovereign
Nation but rather a singular head for a different kind of organization,
such as a charity, or a people in exile, or a religious group who
studies and wishes to do the Torah. (When the King dies, the next oldest becomes King, and this continues until the Electoral Committee can no
longer rule by the size of its original majority, which is 6. Then there
is a general re-election for the Electoral Committee.)

I think it should not be underestimated, that if you elect a King, while
on the one hand he has no power, needless to say he has a voice like few others. He is after all elected to this office, which implies support.
There are people who listen to the one they chose, and who will carry
forward his word. This may provide a sense of unity, where it is
lacking, while on the other hand, it could also create division.
Ultimately, all unity should be resting upon the truth, and to find what
is justice and peace.

You will probably notice that if there is doubt and debate about what
form to choose, this is precisely why there is this way of making
decisions. If I could give you an advice: try to think about how
important a decision is, because some decisions are more important than
others, and while one decision is made today, tomorrow it could be
proven less good than hoped by its proponent and the next day after
it could again be changed. Is it worthwhile on the fourth day, to
remember the harsh words you may have spoken on the first day, even when
you have won the debate in the end ? Is it worthwhile to use harsh and
angry words with an individual, which he might not forget for the rest
of htis life and which fractures the unity of the people, for decisions
which where not about life and death, or even if they are ? What is a
decision worth, and how far should you go in your treatment of others
who do not agree with you, and how far would you have gone if you had
treated your opponents as if they where your King and you treated them
with love and respect, and how far will you go together if you treat
each other with an unbreakable bond of kindness.

Even if you feel the need to split away, if things go too far for you in
a certain direction, then even this could be achieved without going too
far. There is a big difference between someone making an honest or
innocent mistake, and the crimes of the evil ones which they commit
knowing full well they deserve punishment and anger. Once the anger
bleeds into the councils and people who did not deserve or need such
treatment are subjected to it, everything will likely shatter into
chaos.

This is, incidentally, also the point where the King becomes King.
He will then take over the reign of the group or Nation, for a while.
Three times for a year he may rule as a dictator, after which there is a re-election for the Electoral Committee itself. If the same King has
been chosen for several times, there will be no elections for the
Electoral Committee any longer, but the King who has been so ratified
will rule to the end of his willingness to do so, or the end of his
life. By these rules the King would be bound, and this Constitution the
King may not change. After this King has ruled over the State of Chaos,
another attempt is made for the Coucils to govern themselves and the
people.

In the case of Israel as a Sovereign Nation, needless to say it would be respectful to history and your Prophets and your God to elect from the
House of David, whose records you have kept since the time. (I
undersigned and am not electable in this way; you can ignore me, I
already said enough.)

These mechanisms are present to act as a guarantee of the unity of the
people, against the chaos of misbehavior. Everything rests on one thing:
loving kindness to your fellow Jew, your fellow humans. The existance
of the entire world hangs on that and that alone. He who has this, has everything. He who has not this, has nothing. Remember this one thing,
even if everything else above just seems like madness or you simply do
not agree with it, and you should succeed no matter what, sooner or
later.

It should be noted however, that being overly kind to error is not
necessarily good. A mistake is still a mistake, and can and should be
called out for it. However there is a big difference between saying: "I
think this ... is a mistake, and would prefer ... if you would like to
think about it." versus "You [explicit insult] of a [insult] ..." etc.
This is what i mean with kindness, not to say "oh It's fine to have a
prozbul, let's be loving and kind to Hillel the Elder because that is
all that matters." No, prozbul is a fraud and a lie. Perhaps I could
also be nicer about it, but it still needs to be corrected and it still
is unacceptable if the Torah is law, if the Torah is the guide. Too much kindness to the criminal and the corrupt, to the lies, is also a
mistake. It is a bit of a fine line, because third persons can get
confused by someone with ill intentions, and then what do you do when it
all goes wrong.

For this whole topic of how to debate and handle Councils, I think there
needs to be education upon it, training if you will. This is the first
thing you could do, to figure out how to train to be well behaved in a
Council. It can have education and tests, also certificates of
succeeding, which can in turn be revoked upon bad behavior in a Council.
Voter groups may then require of their membership, by their own decision
and right to assemble those people together, that their members follow
such a program, and/or are certified by it. It is also about how to
learn to speak the right amount: not too little and not too much. I
ceratinly urgently need to attend such a school, because I never seem to
stop adding more text.

In any case, there is an option for you, which should be clear enough,
and also has an easy first step. A nice thing about this model, is how
easy it is to integrate multiple organizations together. You can in many
cases probably keep your groups of 10 the same, and also many groups of
50 can remain the same, while the representatives merge and re-organize
their Councils to fit the new combined group. This is particularly
useful for a Sovereignty, where such merging is critical. The Government
can then truly come up from the ground in many places at the same time,
merging together step by step, and also allowing splitting away if
necessary. This is quite different from other election and Government
models, who all seem to have a centralized bottle neck. The initiative
is with the people, broadly and generally. You can just do it. You !
Today !

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.socialism

Step 1:

- A small group (10) of people;
- finds several (5) other such small groups;
- to create a Council (1) together;
- for which they choose a chair person (1),
- for which they choose a representative to represent them (1);
- for which they choose a reserve representative (1);
- and all these they choose are different persons, it may not be
combined in one person.
- Whoever is chosen can always be replaced any moment by those electing
that person, and this is true for the whole Council model.

Step 2:

- If the organization is large enough to have multiple (N) of these
so created Councils, the representatives (not the reserve
representatives) come together in Councils like in the first step.
They can form Councils themselves according to the need for having
such Councils. A likely scenario is the geographic separation
determining the need for separate Councils in different areas, however
it can also be separate councils based on something else (whatever you
want, and what makes sense; it can even be minhag if you want I guess).

When it concerns a Government (a Sovereignty), a minimum amount of
representatives (50) is necessary to form an authority of a local
Government.

Step 3:

- When the amount of representatives in a council becomes unwieldy,
the representatives may elect from between themselves second tier
representatives, by forming sections of variable but similar size.
Each section selects their second tier representative.
- All the representatives together form (as it where) the Parliament,
which you could call the most serious Government.

If this concerns a Sovereignty (highest Government in the land),
all the representatives together must vote upon what is to be law.
- All the representatives together, if an unwieldy large group, divide
into sections (N-50), to elect the highest body of the organization.

The exact model is detailed in https://www.socialism.nl/book4/gratis/Distribute_power-combibook_2.8.pdf

An easy way to remember the model (if it seems confusing) could be:

- Your left arm, the shoulder represents you.
- Your left arm, the elbow represents your group of 10.
- Your left arm, the hand (5 fingers) represent 5 groups of 10,
is your direct Council (or called voter-group) of 50. This is the base
population themselves, they are not elected (and also not necessarily
certified in any way, except by age, but the group decides whom to
allow to be in that group, and individuals decide if they want to join
and decide to leave if they want).
- The representative of Council group can be likened to a tool in the hand,
which is the whole hand acting as one for a purpose.

Left Shoulder, left elbow, left hand, tool in it.
Yourself, your group of 10, your group of 50, your representative.

Then for the second tier councils:

- Your right arm, the shoulder represents you again. The shoulder, but
more precisely your entire body except for the arms.
- Your right arm, the elbow represents the Council(s) where your
representative is a part off himself (herself). This could typically
be at least a local Council of convenient size (50), plus the
collective of all the delegates (law maker in a Sovereign State, the
most powerful Government body in the Nation).
- Notice how you can grab your right elbow with your left hand: your
delegate is in the first tier Council(s), and you may try to influence
this Council directly through that delegate (hand), who is part of it.
- You right hand, the second tier elected Council(s), for which your
representative has been part of electing someone with the section of
first tier delegates he is a part off.
- A tool in the right hand represents people who are appointed by this
second tier Council to do various jobs, which in a Sovereign State are
typically your Department heads (English), which we can 'Ministers'
in the Netherlands. These people can be placed and removed, just like
a tool, and they serve a specific purpose. If the hands grabs such a
tool, and then another, it is the Council calling that Minister to
account, and then instructing another.

T.1 means tier 1, T.2 means tier 2 (this schematic requires a fixed
font to be readable):


Right: Left:
(Head)
(you)

Shoulder Shoulder
(you) (you)

Elbow Elbow
(Council T.1) (10)
\
Hand \ Hand
(Council T.2) \ (50)
\
Tool Tool
(Employee) (Representative T.1)


I guess it isn't perfect, but could help you make sense out of it.
While the step of 10 for a sub-council is an implicit step (and you
could certainly do a different size such as 5) in this model (as it is described and proposed), it seems nevertheless quite important from a
personal perspective. These are the people you relate to the most, and
only then you step to the whole Council of 50 (assembled base population
or group members). While it isn't described as having any official
separate power, it does seem to be one of the most important aspects in
the practice of it.

*

Size of Nations
---------------

While I think you could argue that if humanity becomes completely honest
and good, then you could make more and more tiers function correctly.
However I think that if humanity becomes completely honest and good, you
can also have the relations between Sovereign Nations function
correctly. You don't need to create more and more tiers if you want some
sort of organized framework for an unlimited amount of people to come
together in some way.

The Sovereign Nations can treat each other like brothers and sisters,
have a good chat and make a decision based on the flow of their talks,
which they could have while retaining their Sovereignty. Any agreements
they might make are then no more than a proposal to the Council, and
may from there be rejected, approved, altered and removed, as all other proposals and decisions.

How many people need to be combined in one Sovereignty, before it should
be Sovereign, is an important question. By war and Empire, I think
humanity makes it generally far too large. Nations of Scandinavia are on average 5 million, Swiss is not that big, Netherlands (with its important
1566 Revolution) is not that big, Israel is not that big, etc. USA is
a monstrous empire of 50 Sovereign States, which is creating hell on
Earth, the European Union is one of the disasters they have created,
China is a tyranny as usual, etc.

I think a Nation of some 5 million people, is already a Federation of
areas of land and people so great that the ordinary people is
essentially lost in it. That is already pushing far the human limits.
That is already an Empire of Nations. If you go back in history you also
see that 'Nations' had just parts of territories of huge Empires which
are now called 'Nations'. Israel is already a federation of 12 Nations,
Tribes, 12 Tribes. It is a lot. What does a Sovereign Constitution,
Goverenmnt and law need to do, how many resources does their economy
need to be well rounded ? In the not distant past, a village of 300
could already be a de-facto Sovereignty, have everything they needed to survive, and survive on their own they did, even if they traded further
afield, which is no problem for a Sovereign Nation either. How many
people do you need, before you can shoulder the costs of having a Judge specialized in the job, or a full time Council member ? Millions of
people is more than enough to have this, while even the village elders
are enough to do the job.

Good example makes good following, bad example and everyone can learn,
and this is why it is important to at least have enough Sovereign
Nations in existence, and certainly not what the world is doing now:
uniting under one clique (and criminal it is).

Therefore I stick to the maximum 2 delegates tier model, 1,.2), and
think it is good enough, even in the future. We can learn from history
that changing the voter group size does not work. This was done in the
1917 Revolution in Russia, and did not function correctly. The group
becomes far too large to have effective control and re-elections. That
model failed for other reasons also however: a bad economic model they
where trying to implement (totalitarian plan economy), and they where
not ready for it at all (the Councils where apathetic, did not know what
to do). These are separate issues, and have been resolved (I think at
least) in the proposed system (economic model, the rest of the Government model, and the '9 ways' implementation plan).

They combined the worst of everything in 1917: bad planning generally,
a people not used to this kind of work, a war situation upon them, a humanitarian crisis of the first order created by the Czar his crazed rule
and the first world war, the system was not tightly described or thought
out at all (completely loose from the gun, groups here groups there, all various sizes), the job these councils where given was impossible because
to run a plan economy and do away with trade and private initiative is
insanity and will never work (until humans become angels I guess). That
they tried it at all and made enough of an attempt to at least reach the history books, was already an achievement under those conditions and
demands. You may want to notice how natural this form of organization
and Constitution is: it is just people standing together, forming a
unity of mind, and sending their thoughts and will to other such groups
through a messenger. It all goes from there. It is basic and natural.
On an extremely large scale, the scale of modern Nations, it needs to be
worked out in detail, and it needs to be worked out well, because the
larger the more difficult it gets. More people, more problems.

If modern parliament would have worked, that would have been wonderful.
Then we would have the solution. Sadly it does not work adequately. It
is too corrupt, and there are bottlenecks in its power (centralized
elections, party head quarters, and standing de-facto unalterable
mandates for years). The parliamentary model stimulates strife, because
all the representatives are gathered from a sort of a competitior
between factions who want to become the largest. They compete for the
same voters, it is a fighting model in that sense. This Council model is
not a fighting model, at least not at the root of it. It is still
perfectly possible that the model will fail, but on paper it looks good. (Famous last words ;-)

Omg I can see that happen ... massive Revolution, complete failure and
then a new proverb for eternity ... "On paper it looked good!" XD
But you have to admit, especially once you tried to describe the current parliamentary general elections model or other models in similar detail
to explain it to someone who has no clue, that this model here proposed
(a worked out Council Government model) looks pretty decent on paper,
does it not ? I think that this also matters, because looking good
implies simplicity and elegance, and these are tools of power for
people.

It needs to be simple to be effective. "I (first tier delegate) represent *you*, and if you don't like it, you can right now declare you left this
voter group, and then I do not represent you anymore." This can mean a
lot to that voter group, even the loss of their participation, if they
end up with too few members to be part of a Sovereign Government. For
example they dropped from 50 to 49 members, that means that delegate has
lost its standing. They need to find someone else to fill the gap, or
listen to this person their grievances to keep him in. So you see the individual has a lot more power in this model. Also people who are not organized who see a wrong, can suddenly organize any day, and push their delegates into the Councils, start voting right away, start changing the membership of the National Government if they are with enough. No need
to wait for a general election.

Overall the model is: more close knit social, it is more participatory
although you can ignore things if you want (participate on a level you
like), it is more dynamic (people can be constantly re-elected), more
direct, more horizontal, initiative is with the people and in that sense
it is open.

Okay, I can go on like this for another 100 pages, have a nice day.

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
1ith a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)