Have any candidates signed the SP pledge?

democrates

SP or Simultaneous Policy is a movement to bring about global solutions to global problems. Policies are decided by citizen members, and the pledge for support does not require change that would create a competitive disadvantage because no change is made until significant numbers of other nations also support a given measure.

It seems all that's being asked in this pledge is for voters and politicians to say they'd like a better world on condition that enough of us have agreed on how to play fair and can counter those who try to grab ever more regardless of the cost to others. Sounds good to me.

Has any Irish politician or party made the pledge though? I cant find any matches on google, anyone seen an example?

EDO

have you tried the Green Party Site - all that surreal airy-fairy happy clappy idealistic stuff sounds right up their alley.

democrates

EDO wrote:

have you tried the Green Party Site - all that surreal airy-fairy happy clappy idealistic stuff sounds right up their alley.

I suppose we could just assume that there is no alternative to ever increasing consumption and pollution, to the economic caste system of owner and employee, to globalised private capital without global democratic oversight, to telling every kid in every country they must struggle ever harder in competing for a living, to poverty amid plenty, to this global economic war that has nations at each others throats. But I'd call such an assumption a cop-out.

Some people think there are no global systemic problems, more capitalist greed is their universal prescription. People like myself see that perception as either ignorance or malevolence.

oscarBravo

democrates wrote:

I suppose we could just assume that there is no alternative to ... the economic caste system of owner and employee...

Some of us don't want an alternative to it. Some of us own businesses.

democrates

oscarBravo wrote:

Some of us don't want an alternative to it. Some of us own businesses.

I have my own business too.

But as it expands the plan is for an entrepreneurial democratic co-operative. Given the fiduciary duties of roles in accounts, company secretarial, health & safety and so on there cannot be anarchy because you can't have responsibility without control. No difference to the seperate owners model there.

Where there is flexibility people will be treated as adults, involved in decisions affecting them, trusted to do the necessary, and earn a share of the profits. Existing such organisations have found that this setup tends to maximise profit, productivity, loyalty, quality, and responsiveness in delivering sustainable growth.

The closest environment to this I've see here is Airtricity who you may recall won first place in the Best Company to Work For. If you take that, subtract the seperate owners, give staff a share in the profits and more say in decision making, that's pretty much what I'm talking about.

I'm under no illusions that certain traditional mindsets are dead set against such fairness, but that's not my problem.

oscarBravo

Sounds genuinely interesting and laudable, but it still looks to me like a business that will be owned by its owners and have employees working for it.

democrates

oscarBravo wrote:

Sounds genuinely interesting and laudable, but it still looks to me like a business that will be owned by its owners and have employees working for it.

It could take on various legal forms, one I'm interested in in the longer term is the "Company Limited by Guarantee and having No Share Capital". These are classified as a public company, so there are onerous requirements to the revenue and companies office, not least of which is at least 7 members and audited annual accounts.

The first form so is likely to be an LLC but with the Articles and Memo of Association suitable for a staff-owned democratic co-operative with a binding mission of sustainable growth and social responsibility. I'm not yet sure how the law applies to existing co-ops around things like pay and conditions eg sick leave entitlements, grievance/disciplinary procedures etc but whatever the situation the future 'we' can work with it.

Thanks for your complimentary response oscarBravo, I'm not surprised, beneath my imflammatory rhetoric I've seen the stats, most people go into business not for greed, but for freedom, adventure, and to build something great - "money's just a way of keeping score". If it weren't for entrepreneurship imagine the unemployment rate.

I shop in local butchers and so on rather than support the crushing of small business by titans in what UK towns call "the Tesco chainstore massacre". Also I buy fairtrade and the more expensive milk so that farmers get a fairer deal. I admire, respect, and support small businesses, those who do the long hours with no minimum wage, holiday entitlements or any of that to make it work. Easy it ain't.

For that, and for the risks taken (I know a family that disintegrated when their business collapsed due to the arrival of a much larger competitor, they lost everything including the family home which was security for a business loan, the five employees lost only their jobs and soon got new ones), I firmly support rewards commensurate with the true value of entrepreneurial endeavour, and that's obviously more than a person who walks in off the street to a ready-made role with comfortable pay and conditions and little risk.

My beef used to be that our education system was designed to produce working stock, but entrepreneurship is just another option these days. Not everyone wants, or is well suited, to take an idea through the startup phase and on to stability, but no problem, the "tell me what to do and I'll do it" end of the continuum are part of the mix and it only takes a few adventurous types to forge new destinies.

With this enterprise I hope to provide another option for entrepreneurs, if I'm right it'll make it easier, time will tell. If that goes well the next phase will be an incubator facility to propagate offshoots and collaborate abroad. Startups on Dragons Den constantly point to having the team with experience and a good network on board as a deciding factor. Risk has to be taken seriously for the incubator, not every idea is worthy of pursuit, there'll be rejected hopefuls and failed attempts but that's grist for the mill, even Dermot Desmond had a few to learn from.

Without VC injection it's organic growth until such time as the financial record enables business mortgages and bond issues to pension funds, this opens the door to expansion into capital-intensive industries. The transfer of power from large greed-driven corporations to enterprises with a genuine community commitment is the end goal. It's just one thread of activity in the wider scheme of measures described on simpol.org.

How mad is that level of ambition for a sole-trader just keeping afloat at this point? Thing is, it's not about me, in a way I'm just a catalyst to enable others to fullfil their potential, and if someone better joins up I'll gladly step down to focus on coding apps. It's being part of a great adventure to save the world, a glorious quest for good.

I don't expect to see it all in my lifetime, I might fail or decide I was wrong, but life is a journey, being on the best road you can think up feels great. Having seen my mother die last year and my uncle now on a hospital countdown with that same deaths door face, I'm damn well determined to make my lifes work count as much as possible and be something I can be proud of. Up the evolution.:)