Posted Aug 14, 2010
So if I am understanding you correctly (It’s been a while since I read the Molecular Relationship) anyone can call for a vote anytime but the vote has to be unanimous?
No. The vote happens pretty much the way it does in our republic except it can be called at any time. With our representatives we have to wait 2-6 years before we can vote.
Let me give an example of how it would work. Let us suppose that Jim is not happy with his molecular leader and thinks he can do a better job. He challenges his leader and calls for a vote. After a period of discussion a vote is called. Jim gets 10 votes and the leader gets 14 out of the 24. The leader stays in.
Jim calls for a vote and challenges the leader. Ross also thinks he can be a good leader and throws in his hat. A vote is taken. Ross gets 10 votes, the leader 8 and Jim only 6. Ross becomes the new leader.
Let us suppose Jim gets an idea for a group project and presents it to the group. Ross is now the group leader and has the final yes or no decision making power for he group. He doesn’t like Jim’s idea at all and could just veto it if he desires but he senses that if he dismisses it out of hand that the group may think he is unjust and someone may challenge his leadership.
Instead of projecting unjust authority he presents what he considers to be a better plan and calls for a vote. The majority vote for his plan and he not only gets his way, but maintains good relations with his group.
Jim, however, is very frustrated at this point. He thinks he should be the leader but can’t get voted in. He thinks he has good ideas and can’t get them accepted. What can he do? He can go seek other like-minded individuals and form a molecule of his own and become a leader of that as long as the new people will support him. If he is unable to do this then he should stay where he is and support the work being done. If he cannot do this without forming a grievance then he should leave the Molecular order.
The constitution is law for the Federal Government not the people.
The final arbitrator of law is the people. Jury is supposed to be an example of this. Majority will can ne implemented within the framework of the Constitution and no changes are needed. There is nothing that prohibits majority will.
“The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
I am a little confused now. You said: “/The masters do not use the majority rule and the Molecular Relationship does not teach it or practice it/”. So how are they working with majority will at all if the vote has to be unanimous? Unless of course you mean being unanimous then of course that is obviously the majority…. What am I missing?
The only place majority vote has full play is in electing a leader or if the leader calls for or approves a vote. The leader represents the group and can either make the decision or call for a majority vote from the group. The vote does not have to be unanimous unless for some reason this is what the group and the leader want.
There will be many cases where small decisions will need to be made where the leader can save much time by just making them himself. The important ones he will want to discuss with the group and put them to a vote if necessary.
A vote is only mandatory when there is an election for leadership.
One of the ways to see how a molecule works is to watch how I manage the Keys. I have pretty much power here to just decree anything I want for the forum, but I use my authority very sparingly as I could easily chase the whole group away. Instead, I support a maximum freedom of expression and participation and have called for a vote several times when it seemed appropriate.
Again clearly majority will here at play, hence my confusion at your statement
the MR does not teach or practice majority will.
It doesn’t except in elections. As far as the operations of the molecule it operates on the the representative principle similar to our representatives in Congress, except the system will produce more enlightened leaders. How you can see this as majority rule is a mystery to me. The molecular representative has full power of decision over the group and that is not majority rule even though he will be in touch with majority will and work with it as seems appropriate. The majority have to be satisfied in any organization or it will fall apart unless you have a dictatorship ruled by fear. That doesn’t mean you have majority rule.
Because our political representatives are not representing the majority, the majority are dissatisfied the people are demanding real change. That doesn’t mean we have majority rule in this country, but we do have majority influence. That is why they have town halls and read letters and emails.
If you are the leader of a molecule you can run it without taking any vote if you want or not even get any input but if the majority feel they are not being represented or respected your position would soon be challenged.
The majority elect a leader to express their will. How can that be anything but majority will?
I guess it is a matter of semantics. In this country the majority elect a representative to express their will but I haven’t seen you call this majority will, but representative government, which constitutes a Republican form of government rather than a democracy.
The Molecular Relationship is similar but safer because the leaders will be less subject to corruption. It can’t be called pure majority will because the leader can go against the majority at any time his inner guidance reveals it is necessary. Our government representatives can also go against the majority and often do – not because of inner guidance, but because of outside influences.
I understand the concept that everything does not need to be voted on and the leader can run with it, (I assume the leader is also limited in what he can do too) that is not my confusion, the point is if he ignores the will of the majority then he will be removed (in the MR) again how is that anything but majority will?
I have said many times the voting for leaders is majority will just as is the case in the U.S. It is the running of business that has the leader and not the majority as the deciding point. This is not governed by majority will, but by a leader accepting or rejecting majority views – or presenting something that has not occurred to the majority to get their response.
This seems also to differ entirely from the BOL in the scenario in your book where they had to have unanimous approval to move forward with the books. So if Christ is the leader he can’t just pull rank and say were doing it anyway..
I don’t believe that is written in the books. John said he wanted to get unanimous approval, but that doesn’t mean it was required. However, if the leader deems it wise he can require unanimous approval on a direction, or he can go by a mere majority – or just make the decision. If the group sees eye to eye through the soul they should all see the same. On an item that does not involve a principle at play then there is likely to be more disagreement.
I believe I required unanimous approval on one project we did years ago, but most of the time that I have called for a vote we went with the majority. Other times I have just decided and presented a plan. It just depends on the circumstance.
Now the fasting plan originated within the group and fit in with the purpose of the group so the best thing to do was to let it happen. On the other hand, if someone wanted to create a cheerleading section on the Keys for more stimulus spending I would use my authority as leader of the Keys to send the illusionary fool toward greener pastures.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey