Direct democracy & a just financial & economic system.
Citizens for Citizens is a movement to create a fairer political, social and economic system.
It should be made known worldwide, since it is not possible to implement our ideas in one country only.
Under basic idea we explain the main steps to be taken to achieve our goals.
Politicians should do what the majority of citizens want. Unfortunately, however, the political system is structured in such a way that this is never the case. Once elected, politicians do as they please, and cost a lot of taxpayers money, even once retired. They can do a lot of damage within the term of office. The same groups are being served well but for most citizens only a few crumbs remain. Slowly but surely everything is breaking down. The social system, financial and economic system, education, pensions and health. That's how it is in other countries, and that's how it will be in ours. However this can be prevented because technological progress gives us the possibility to have a much greater influence on politics today as well as personal responsibility and transparency. We have to dare a switch to a better and more modern system and finally regain power.
In Luxembourg, no one from Citizens for Citizens wants money from any one, or a well-paid position in politics or any other organization.
Citizens for Citizens just wants to spread their ideas such as "digital direct democracy" and find out how many people can identify with these ideas and work together to create a fairer and better future for all of us.
We are aware that everything we describe here is only the foundation of what is ment to be, and that all details still have to be worked out. We think that this has to be done in full cooperation with all citizens willing to participate in that process, and most important, in full transparency.
The content of these videos does not reflect any claims of Bierger fir Bierger, but
is only meant to encourage our fellow men to deal with what is said in the
videos, to do their own research to get to the bottom of the truth.
Furthermore, it is absolutely not our aim to stir up hatred
or antipathy towards any group of people.
A global plan to better and stabilize the social, political and financial situation of our society.
(All proposals on this page more or less depend of each other.)
The main steps
1. Referendum for direct democracy as described on this page.
2. Implementation of direct democracy.
3. Swap of the tax system. Introduction of a financial transaction tax.
4. Basic unconditional income. Why? How?
5. New monetary system, compatible with the financial transaction tax.
1. Direct democracy:
Direct democracy must begin and be enforced in the smallest instances.
The switch of the political system, which the implementation of direct democracy will drag along, has to be decided by all eligible citizens. Those who do not want to participate, should not be forced. For this reason, a referendum has to be organised in which citizens are asked if they want direct democracy in the form described in this document. This referendum must be demanded of the government over the course of a petition.
Digital direct democracy:
The evolution of technology enables eligible citizens for a constant political decision right, without entailing huge financial expenditures.
This is how the system works:
Every citizen, or group of citizens, has the right to draft legislative proposals, which will be analysed by a group of independent and specialised lawyers. These proposals will be published on the specific highly secured online platform straight away (for transparency reasons), on which every eligible citizen can log-on any time to read and comment the proposals. Citizens can read and write pro and contra arguments, and write suggestions. At first new proposals will get the status “pending” or “unchecked”, and once the proposal has been finalised, it will get the status “ready”. After this process has finished all eligible citizens can vote for or against the proposal.
The platform has to be accessible from a mobile phone, tablet or home PC via the internet. Also terminals have to be accessible in state authorities’ buildings for this specific use.
The time citizens provably spend on this platform for political work, has to be financially rewarded from tax money. That time should also count as work time, as if you had a second job, and have an influence on your pension, which depends on the pension system at the given moment though.
2. Implementation of direct democracy:
The implementation of the above described form of direct democracy depends on the switch to a different political system, and thus on a change of the constitution. Conventional politicians and parties, and their financial subsidies, same as the out of political activities resulting current waste of money, will be obsolete, as every eligible citizen would contribute to the political work according to his or her personal wishes, and be financially compensated for that work. Ministries would then only be filled with competent people for the implementation of the laws, and would have to be 100% transparent.
3. Change of taxation:
Our current taxation system is highly unjust and easy to manipulate. It cannot be kept this way. For example: Making home or land owners pay a tax for owning land or parts of land, or making dog owners pay for owning a dog, is highly irrational.
A financial transaction tax on all financial transactions would solve the problem, and make all other taxes needless. Treasuries would always be filled, and the percentage of the tax could be adjusted at any moment, according to the financial need of public spending. Details to regulate this system need to be decided through direct democracy.
4. Basic uncoditional income:
The loss of well and less well payed employments over the next 10 years, and thus resulting rise of unemployment, resulting from technological evolution, IT and robotic, will make the basic income inevitable for the continued existence and simplification of our social system. To maximize the positive effects of the basic income, it has to be payed to each and every citizen.
Implementation of the basic unconditional income:
The amount of the BUI needs to cover the basic human needs, such as housing, healthy food and water, and medical care if needed. Every human born in the country would benefit from BUI starting low at birth, and rising to a specific amount up to the age of the end of compulsory school attendance. To guaranty the financial means, the financial transaction tax mentioned under point 3 could be adapted if needed, which would be decided by all the citizens under the direct-democratic system as described under point 3.
5. New monetary system
The current monetary system is de facto in private hands and is an unfair and undemocratic exploiting system. Most banks worldwide are privately owned. These banks are allowed to create money out of nothing, by giving out loans, of which the majority of the loaned money has not existed before giving out the loan. In this simple way banks can enrich themselves, and contribute to the devaluation of the currency. Furthermore, this criminal practice of enrichment and criminal use of these riches by a small group of people, is fatal for the rest of society.
Banks and governments plan to abolish cash money. This will lead huge problems, as people will have no other choice then to keep their money in the banks, or invest it in precious metals or diamonds or other value keeping materialistic objects. Citizens would be totally at the mercy of the banks and governments. Banks could charge negative interests on funds kept in the banks, and you couldn’t do anything about it.
A switch to a transparent and decentralized currency, which is not controlled by a single authority, is thus essential to the liberties of a free citizen. Money should serve the one and only purpose: Simplify the payment of goods and services. It should not serve as a speculative commodity. Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are a good example for the creation of such a monetary system. Same as for the other measures, the currency matter should be sorted in a direct democratical way.
Simple, modern and fair.
Each eligible citizen will have the right…
To propose a bill which, same as for pro and contra arguments, can be read and liked or disliked by every other eligible citizen
To vote YES or NO for every bill proposed, via Mobile phone, tablet, home PC or voting terminal which can be found in ministries or other public buildings.
Elected officials, as we know them today, will not be needed anymore. Parliaments will only be used for live debates over proposed bills. Citizens will be able to watch the debates on the special online platform. They will also be recorded and saved on this platform, to be watched at any other point in time. (Same as Chamber TV today)
The political commitment of every legitimate citizen should, if it can be proven
be remunerated by the public purse and, depending on the pension system, also be registered as working time.
added to the overtime account at the regular workplace, with employers getting reimbursed financially by the public purse
Each proven political commitment will be equally rewarded. The time sacrificed for political engagement by the citizen must be recorded in his online account. The citizen must be able to view the recorded data at all times.
The citizens can decide for themselves which amount of time for political commitment they want to get payed for, and which quantum he would like to be credited as overtime.
There will be defined a time quantum for political engagement, beyond which one citizen can no longer pursue any other full-time employment, and from the of the exceeding of this time quantum, additional commitment will be paid slightly higher. However, in this case, the citizen must be able to prove the loss of full-time employment income. If reduced working hours are possible at the usual workplace, the basic remuneration for political work remains.
In order to avoid mischief, the system will record the real activities of a citizen on the online platform and digitally communicate the data to this citizen each time a session is closed. Only the individual citizen will be able to see his data. The online platform will need to be fully secured, and be accessible only with triple authentication (username, password, and mobile code or luxtrust token). The system should be built on the blockchain.
The consequences of this variant:
Since all eligible citizens (I call it that for the time being) has the power over all decisions, rather than a small number of people's representatives, it will become extremely difficult for potential outside influence to directly influence people's decisions.
Overly high salaries for politicians, as well as political party financing and the waste of money on election campaigns, will be a thing of the past.
Political parties in the usual sense will no longer exist, whereby no one is forced to join a certain grouping and to fully support their philosophy.
No eligible citizens will be denied to engage exclusively with politics, and will be reimbursed accordingly.
For foreign affairs, competent citizens must be selected and commissioned by the people for each assignment. From the time other countries adopt this form of direct democracy, overseas travel will also be abolished, as everything will be regulated through the online platforms.
Our current political system
What makes us different from animals?
If you look at the earth and its inhabitants, you can see that all living things have not only a certain intelligence but also instincts.
The higher the IQ, the weaker the instincts. The main difference between humans and animals is intelligence.
An animal that eats other animals does not worry about ethics. A number of people have ethical problems with eating meat from other living beings though.
Why? Empathy! What's empathy?
Wikipedia speaks of compassion of people for people. However, animals can feel empathy for people too, and vice versa. Still, animals don't worry about eating other animals. They act by instinct. They act in a way they have learned from their parents and their kind. This is different for humans. Our intelligence enables us to question what we have learned from our parents and fellow human beings based on our experiences, and to develop our own personal behaviour. As a consequence many humans have become vegans and vegetarians. Humans know that they don't have to eat meat to survive. What's the ethical perspective on that?
Vegetarians are vegetarians for various reasons. It doesn't just result from the knowledge that we don't have to eat meat. The way we breed animals for consumption is crucial and has caused many people to stop eating meat (or other parts of animals), or at least reduce their meat consumption. Empathy, or the compassion for the animals in question plays a major role.
What else is the difference between humans and animals?
Spontaneously I think of our precise means of communicating. However, not everyone is capable of precise and understandable communication, which is often the reason for misunderstandings and arguments. Of course, a positive result in communication between two people depends on what the individual wants. If both don't want the same thing, one question arises: "Is one right or the other and what does it depend on? Is there only one right and one wrong, or is it different from topic to topic? Example:
One room, 2 people, room temperature 20 ° C. One is too cold or one is too warm. Should it be made acceptable for one of the two, or should a middle ground be found, which both will be equally (un)satisfied with? The situation would be different If there were 3 people in the room. Again, animals don't worry about such things.
In a modern society, governments set the rules the people should follow, and punish in the event people fail to comply with the laws. The state therefore has the power to impose its view of right or wrong on the rest of society. This is great responsibility, and if misused, or wrong decisions are taken, devastating consequences follow.
Why is it that our political and social system exists in the way that a minority is given great responsibility or rather power? Do we not want the responsibility ourselves? Do we prefer to have a scapegoat we can blame if it made mistakes, even if only on an ethical basis? Are we too comfortable to take responsibility ourselves? If we wanted to change that, how difficult would that be?
The basic principle of democracy is that the will of the majority is taken into account. Many countries are officially run as democracies, but de facto no longer meet the criteria of a real democracy.
It is utopian to believe that we live in a true democracy because we cannot be sure:
That politicians who standing for election, after the elections will or can implement measures they announced before the elections.
That politicians are not aiming for parliament for self-serving reasons, thus only for their personal gain.
That the majority of people still have influence on what their representatives do within their 5-year period in power.
That the most voted for candidates get into parliament.
That the laws they will implement represent the will of the majority of the people.
That the representatives will only propose and implement laws that are in the best interest of the majority of the people.
If the majority of representatives in parliament agree on a subject, this does not mean that the majority of the people have the same opinion.
Most of the current democratic systems are out of date and have never been adapted to the current state of technology. The political process could probably not have been better at an earlier time, but things look different today. The internet, which was launched on October 29 1969, and the progress in IT, for example the blockchain technology, has not brought our politicians to give back the responsibility and more importantly the power back to the people which on the other hand would have been possible for a long time now.
In general, human beings are hungry for power, and once in possession, they find it very hard to relinquish this power.
If all of this makes sense to us, a crucial question arises:
Do I want to leave everything as it is or do I (even if I think that I do suffer none or only very little negative consequences in the current system) want to change to another more modern direct-democratic system, in which I will regain an influence on political decisions.
What could be the reasons to hold on to the current system?
I'm doing well in the current system and I doubt that this will change in the future.
I do not care for politics and want to spend my time with pleasant things.
My work and family are too time-consuming to get involved in politics.
I think that the majority of people are too dumb to take the right decisions.
What reasons are there to change the system?
I have seen what politicians have done in the current system and I'm very afraid of what they may do in the future.
It's easier to influence a small group of people than a whole nation.
I find the current system undemocratic and I want to re-take responsibility and the right to participate in the decision making process.
I want the majority of the people to decide.
In a modern direct-democratic system, if implemented globally, war may be a thing of the past, which leads to huge savings of tax payers money, which could be invested for the benefit of the people.
In case you can think of other reasons, please do not hesitate to write them in the comments section.
Please Let un know what you think about all this.
If you find orthographic or grammatical errors on our site, please send us a short message.
Nobody is perfect.