background preloader

Open-source governance

Open-source governance
Open-source governance is a political philosophy which advocates the application of the philosophies of the open source and open content movements to democratic principles in order to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a wiki document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry, employing their collective wisdom to benefit the decision-making process and improve democracy.[1] Theories on how to constrain, limit or enable this participation vary however as much as any other political philosophy or ideology. Accordingly there is no one dominant theory of how to go about authoring legislation with this approach. Applications of the principles[edit] In practice, several applications have evolved and been used by actual democratic institutions in the developed world:[3] Common and simultaneous policy[edit] These goals for instance were cited often during the Green Party of Canada's experiments with open political platform development.

Human shield action to Iraq Activist movement in opposition to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq The Human Shield Action to Iraq was a group of people who traveled to Iraq to act as human shields with the aim of preventing the U.S.-led coalition forces from bombing certain locations during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In December 2002, Kenneth O'Keefe, an ex-U.S. marine and Persian Gulf War veteran who had attempted multiple times to renounce his U.S. citizenship, posted a call to action for large numbers of western citizens to migrate to Iraq and deploy themselves as "Human Shields".[1][better source needed] The action was ultimately named the TJP (Truth Justice Peace) Human Shield Action to Iraq. O'Keefe believed that protests and petitions had no chance of preventing the invasion and that a large presence of western citizens, strategically placed in Iraq at potential targets, was the only viable deterrent to war. In January 2003 a group of anti-war activists joined O'Keefe in London and set out to carry out the plan.

Noocracy Noocracy (/noʊˈɒkrəsi/ or /ˈnoʊ.əkrəsi/), or "aristocracy of the wise", as defined by Plato, is a social and political system that is "based on the priority of human mind", according to Vladimir Vernadsky.[citation needed] It was also further developed in the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.[citation needed] Etymology[edit] Development[edit] One of the first attempts to implement such a political system was perhaps Pythagoras' "city of the wise" that he planned to build in Italy together with his followers, the order of "mathematikoi." As defined by Plato, Noocracy is considered to be the future political system for the entire human race, replacing Democracy ("the authority of the crowd") and other forms of government. Publications[edit] In the European Commission Community Research publication, Art & Scientific Research are Free: Towards a Culture of Life, it states several commentaries by Hans Jonas and especially Ladislav Kovác about Noocracy.[1] See also[edit] References[edit]

Brand activism Type of activism in economy Brand activism is one way business can play a role in processes of social, political, economic, or environmental change.[1] Applying brand activism, businesses show concern not for profits but for the communities they serve, and their economic, social, and environmental problems, which allows businesses to establish value-based relationships with customers and prospects. Businesses express brand activism through the vision, values, goals, communication, and behavior of the businesses and its brands towards the communities they are part of.[1] Unlike corporate social responsibility and environmental, social and corporate governance politics, which are marketing-driven and corporate-driven, brand activism is society-driven.[1] Thus, brand activism can be regressive or progressive; for example companies that lobby our politicians for regressive policies are brand activists, as are companies seeking to have an impact on the biggest societal problems.[3] [edit]

Sociocracy Sociocracy is a system of governance, using consent-based decision making among equivalent individuals and an organizational structure based on cybernetic principles.[1] The most recent implementation of sociocracy by Gerard Endenburg,[2] also known as Circular Organizing, was developed as a new tool for governance of private enterprise, but has been adopted in many different kinds of organizations including public, private, non-profit and community organizations as well as professional associations. Origins[edit] The word sociocracy is derived from the Latin and Greek words socius (companion) and kratein (to govern). It is English for the word sociocratie, coined in 1851 by Auguste Comte, a French positivist philosopher (who also derived the word sociology from social physics) and later used by the U.S. sociologist Lester Frank Ward in a paper he wrote for the Penn Monthly in 1881 and later still by Dutchman Kees Boeke, who applied the concept to education. Essential principles[edit]

Section 28 Former British anti-homosexuality law Section 28 or Clause 28[a] was a legislative designation for a series of laws across Britain that prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities. Introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, it was in effect from 1988 to 2000 in Scotland and from 1988 to 2003 in England and Wales. It caused many organisations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student support groups to close, limit their activities or self-censor.[2] Male homosexuality had been illegal within the United Kingdom for centuries, with laws on sodomy having first been passed as the Buggery Act 1533 by Henry VIII in England. Beginning in the 1980s, gay men faced a further challenge, with HIV/AIDS first reported in 1981,[7] and the first recorded victims of the disease being a group of gay men.[8] The disease quickly became associated within the media with gay and bisexual men in particular. Lord Somers countered: No. Controversy over applicability

Main Page - Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people Gentle protest From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Type of activism Gentle protest is an approach to activism[1] which aims to change hearts, minds, policies and laws through thoughtful and compassionate actions. Its intent is to invite reflection and respectful conversation rather than division. In 2017 she wrote a book, How To Be A Craftivist: The Art of Gentle Protest,[7] and ran a six-week online course titled "The School of Gentle Protest"[8] as part of a project funded by Arts Council England in collaboration with the University of Lincoln. Gentle protest has been used as a framework by groups in Potsdam,[10] the Lake District,[11] and at WWF[6] to protest on a broad range of issues. ^ "Sarah Corbett".

Metasystem transition A metasystem transition is the emergence, through evolution, of a higher level of organization or control. The concept of metasystem transition was introduced by the cybernetician Valentin Turchin in his 1970 book "The Phenomenon of Science", and developed among others by Francis Heylighen in the Principia Cybernetica Project. The related notion of evolutionary transition was proposed by the biologists John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, in their 1995 book The Major Transitions in Evolution. Turchin has applied the concept of metasystem transition in the domain of computing, via the notion of metacompilation or supercompilation. Evolutionary Quanta[edit] The following is the classical sequence of metasystem transitions in the history of animal evolution according to Turchin, from the origin of animate life to sapient culture: See also[edit] References[edit]

Corporate sociopolitical activism Corporate sociopolitical activism (CSA) refers to a firm's public demonstration of support or opposition to a partisan sociopolitical issue.[1][2][3][4] CSA has become increasingly prominent in recent years, as firms have taken stances on issues such as climate change, racial justice, reproductive rights, gun control, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender equality.[5] Woke capitalism, woke capital and stakeholder capitalism[6] are terms used by some commentators to refer to a form of marketing, advertising and corporate structures that pertains to sociopolitical standpoints tied to social justice and activist causes.[7] The term was coined by columnist Ross Douthat in "The Rise of Woke Capital", an article written for and published in The New York Times in 2018.[8][9] Firms may engage in CSA to appeal to purpose-driven ideals, as well as contribute to more strategic motives, in line with consumers' existing preferences for moral purchasing options. Conceptual distinctions [edit] M.A.C.

Paradigm shift A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanities has constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Kuhnian paradigm shifts[edit] Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way. Science and paradigm shift[edit] Examples of paradigm shifts[edit] Natural sciences[edit] Social sciences[edit] Marketing[edit] M.

Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill, 2011 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A Bill relating to Good governance The Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 also known as The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 or Citizens Charter Bill was proposed by Indian central legislation.[1] It was tabled by V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, in Lok Sabha in December 2011. The bill lapsed due to dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. The Bill seeks to confer on every citizen the right to time-bound delivery of specified goods and services and to provide a mechanism for Grievance Redressal. The bill came after Anna Hazare asked for its provisions to be included in the Jan Lokpal Bill.[3]

Related: