Articles:

Resources:

-What the Bleep Do We Know at Lyratek.com?

The Earth-Shift Platform There are many today who believe that the Earth is about to experience an enormous "shift" in the next decade, and that we people must and will take an evolutionary leap forward in our relationship with the planet and with each other. How does this translate into our political systems? How much do they really represent the direction that humanity needs to evolve in? On this page, and its developing subset of articles, we intend to outline a platform of ideals, which we intend to help inform voters, inspire party policy makers, and empower democratic people everywhere to achieve the best and wisest government possible.

Self-Responsibility vs. Candy

The most common type of blame may be of the "why-doesn't-the-government-fix.... or-do-something-about....." variety. However, conspiracy theories (which I myself am more prone to) are another form of the same essential thing.

It is important to keep in mind that government is essentially a law-making and law-changing body, with a bit of diplomatic responsibility. There are, and should always be, limits to what it can do. We should not expect it to do things that can be achieved better by everyday common citizens going about their everyday activities.

Political leaders are savvy about where their votes come from, knowing that self-responsibility can often seem like a bitter pill to most, becoming a hard-sell. And so they offer grand promises instead - what I shall refer to as "candy" in honour of Mevlana Rumi's quote: "The intelligent want self-control; children want candy.". Quite often, politicians' actual plans have little power to achieve the main selling points in their promises.

The candy analogy really hit home in late August of 2005, when I witnessed Tony Clement's campaign attempting to answer concerned voter's questions about relevant issues, while Andy Mitchell's team cruised the main street in a convertible LITERALLY tossing out small wrapped candies for the children in the parade to pick up in his wake.

So voters, ask yourselves if you are favouring plans that benefit the entire community in an election, or just the one that holds the most "candy" for you and your family personally.

Trust vs. the Need to Control (and Punish)

This is another big fundamental shift in ideals, with "Trust" being the Fourth Density principle we are evolving towards, and the "Need to Control" being the resource-draining substitute that mankind has been settling for in its place over the last few millenia.

A few common assumptions seem to be taken for granted surrounding these principles in the political field. It is assumed that corporations and large businesses are not to be trusted, therefore we require them to be controlled by government. However, how many people actually trust their government more?

It is important to remember that both corporations and government are made of ordinary people, and we are all evolving together. Scare tactics have often been employed to cause the common person to give up his or her power and allow others to control them. Theoretically, government should be trusted greater, because they are accountable to the people. Yet how many people only look hastily at what government is doing when required to vote? How many take the extra step to get involved in democracy and have their voices heard on important issues? How many of us pay attention to the new laws and new changes to laws that government makes between elections?

And what's good for the ideal of democracy in government is good for the corporation as well, according to Dr. Stephen Covey. He says that corporate mission statements should ideally be collective agreements co-written by all the employees, customers, and suppliers of an organization, in addition to its management.

I submit that it is only out of distrust of each other in the community that we ask the government to control our neighbour, and with distrust of government itself running rampant, this only adds one more layer of complication to a society that desperately needs to simplify its fundamentals.

New changes to laws should REMOVE CONDITIONS,

Be especially wary of any "Candy" directed to specific groups, because that will require the government to collect information about us all to test whether or not we are a part of that group, which could mean extra lines or even pages on your next tax return or other required forms. Years of fulfilled "candy" promises have wrapped our government procedures in layers upon layers of excess red tape and bureaucracy, until they become incomprehensible to the common citizen. Tax forms that used to be 1 page long 40 years ago are now 50 pages long!

There is a lot to be said for smaller, less-intrusive government, and removal of the tendrils of red-tape that ensnare the common citizen and small business, but this typically comes part and parcel with greater self-responsibility as we cease to look to government to take care of every little thing.

Now, the idea of a community organizing itself and working together on important social projects of benefit to everyone, often championed by the Canadian NDP party, is a great idea, often blocked primarily by the practicalities of governments' inability to shift money around in the ways that the NDP propose. I submit that Monetary Reform needs to happen first, after which many more of the worthwhile social proposals on the table will be easy to achieve, without the intrusive red tape and complicated money shifting the NDP currently advocates to fund its ideas.

Most-Qualified Local Candidates Many parties and voters are looking seriously at different concepts of electoral reform, including proportional representation and mixed-member proportional. A lot of these are great ideas, especially if your vote IS directed at a political party. But the system we are currently using here in Canada is best described as Regional Representation, because your vote directly impacts which of your local candidates will go to Ottawa to represent you and the people of your local riding in the House of Parliament. Many other countries still use similar systems. Particularly while we're still on this system, let's use it to its best advantage. I encourage everyone to go to their local all-candidates debates and/or find other ways of contacting and getting to know your own local candidates.

I think it is better to look for the smartest, most trustworthy, most accessible candidate who operates with the highest integrity, and vote for him or her, rather than parties or party leaders. If we could fill Ottawa with all the best people, regardless of party affiliation, we can optimize our government. Voting merely on party-affiliation could blindly fill Ottawa with less than brilliant party stooges.

Get Involved!

Contact page

LYRATEK.COM