The Power of Election

The Power of Election

A reader comments on my teachings concerning the principle of election as it will be used in the Molecular Relationship and the Molecular Business. He thinks it may not work much better than the present system.

In the Molecular Orders the leaders are selected by an election of their peers, but once the leader is in position he or she has power to make appointments, assignments, instructions, etc. The benefit of the election ingredient is that this prevents the leader from abusing power because if he becomes too authoritative he can be challenged and replaced through a new election. This situation forces the leader to conscientiously take counsel from the group so each person becomes a part of the creative process.

So long as the molecular leader is in place through election he or she then has power to appoint people for certain tasks or call for volunteers similar to what I have done in relationship with this group.

However, permanent positions of leadership will be achieved through either election or initiation. Initiation is the method when a new group is being established. If you, for instance, were to create a Synthesis Group in your area as a Molecular link, no formal election would be necessary. You are the natural leader, for the group elects you by joining with you. But if you later decided to move to another area where there is another group there would need to be a formal election if the leader is to e replaced.

The reader continues: “You have also stated that there are good and proper uses of authority. I would suggest to you that the same thing is true of appointment. There are both good and bad uses of appointment.’

JJ: Yes, there are many good ways to use the power of appointment, but those who have a lengthy authority over you should maintain that power through election, or free will of the subjects. There are many temporary situations where an appointment or volunteering is the most efficient.

The reader continues: Oddly enough Joseph Smith said that , “The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us”(DHC 6:476). I would presume that was a good use of the power of appointment? I would especially presume that since you described these entities themselves as being in molecular relationships to which the first human molecule will link sometime in the future.

JJ: The Planetary Logos could not be elected by human souls or other life forms for they were not yet self conscious units when he came here 23 million years ago.

Before he came there would have been a Molecular meeting and the earth project would have been discussed. Volunteers would have been called for. If there were none then one would have been suggested by the head member and discussion pro and con would have followed. The final one selected would have voluntarily accepted the position. In other words, this entity would be one who through freewill would initiate a part of the plan on planet earth.

DK makes further comments on this indicating that the Ancient of Days is here through his own initiative, yet fulfilling the will of greater lives.

The leader of the greater Molecules would have obtained position by either initiation or election and sustained by the freewill of the group.

A lesser Molecule here on earth would have its leader selected by either election or initiation and would also have many projects. A comparable illustration on the human level would be the discussion of extending the Molecular Order from a location in the United States to Peru. Volunteers would be noted and one would be selected to head up the project. There is no one yet in Peru to elect him to a position of authority, but as the work progresses those who join with the initiator will do so by electing to join with him.

The basic principle is this. The Brotherhood of Light operates through a maximum use of free will and all long term authority must be sustained through free will or the power of election.

Appointment must be limited to projects where free will is not infringed or election is impractical.

You are right that a big problem is business today is too much government interference, but that is a problem separate from the internal efficiency of the company. Even with no outside governmental controls there are many problems for a business to work out and the leaders can still become a beast of authority to the employees. The principle of election can solve this problem for those who wish to rise above the power of the beast.

Alternatives to Election

It is true my friends that the election process is not perfect and all notice in our political system that elections can be manipulated. The thing to consider is that no governing or selection process is perfect as long as human error enters into the equation.

But what is the alternative to election?

There are three alternatives for an existing nation, group or organization.

(1) Appointment

(2) Seizure

(3) Birth

The main problem with these is that the people subject to authority have no power to remove the leader.

For instance in Communist China the chairman is appointed from the top and the people have no power to vote him out.

Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba and again the people had no power to remove him by any available process. Saddam Hussein did the same thing.

Some of the worst kings and emperors in times past obtained their rule through birth.

It is true that the election process in the U.S. has given us imperfect presidents such as Nixon and Clinton, but would you have rather lived in this country during the Clinton years or live in Iraq with no freedoms under a tyrant?

To throw out the principle of election because of imperfections opens the door to tyranny. Hitler didn’t like the idea of election and talked his people out of the principle and look at what they received as a replacement.

All a person has to do to see the benefit of free elections is to compare countries who choose by election compared to those who rule by appointment or seizure.

The point is that if we do not chose authorities by election then we are faced with an alternative with much greater imperfections.

The imperfections that we have witnessed in the election process comes from four main causes.

(1) A lack of accurate knowledge disseminated to the public.

(2) A manipulation of public opinion by those who misuse power.

(3) Encouraging people to vote who know nothing about the issues.

(4) Having so many candidates that an extremist can be elected with a minority vote.

The first two can be solved by an accurate and fair presentation of the facts. The third can be solved by requiring voters to obtain at least a basic knowledge of what they are voting on. The fourth can be solved by having the final vote reduced to two people. This principle was recently illustrated in France when Le Pen (considered an extremist) was defeated by a wide margin in the final run off of two candidates.

As I said there is a time and place for appointments but for those who will have long term authority over us there must exist the power of the governed to hold them in check and remove them periodically. In the molecular relationship, however, decisions may be made by individuals or the group as a whole.

It might be of interest to look at some quotes by Thomas Jefferson on this principle. I particularly like the first quote:

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

“The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people’s voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives–decisions made by a minority, or by one person–are even worse. Rule by consent of ALL the governed is not practicable, since it would mean that government would be paralyzed on controversial issues. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one segment.”

“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817.

“The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.

“The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

“Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

“It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790.

“The Lex majoris partis, founded in common law as well as common right, is the natural law of every assembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

“The fundamental law of every society is the lex majoris partis, to which we are bound to submit.” –Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

“The people of [a] country [that have] never been in the habit of self-government [will] not [be] in the habit of acknowledging that fundamental law of nature by which alone self-government can be exercised by a society, I mean the lex majoris partis. Of the sacredness of this law, our countrymen are impressed from their cradle so that with them it is almost innate. This single circumstance may possibly decide the fate of [a nation].” –Thomas Jefferson to James Breckenridge, Jan. 29, 1800.

“If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter.” –Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808.

June 8, 2002

Copyright By J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.