I glimpsed into the website and the white paper. Thanks for the link. Are you open for a debate on that?

Although I prefer a person independent form of government (which is what I find a really good idea as it would diminish this endless people gossiping in politics), I find the majority voting principle in it outdated, or are majorities based on such a principle not synonymous with intelligence.

Sometimes minorities have unusual proposals and if you consider it carefully, it is always minorities who questioned a habitus that was previously taken for granted. On the threshold to a change, which is enforced by the many on the basis of majority voting principle, you will never have consensus, since there will always be winners and losers with this form of principle. In order to appreciate the intelligence and reason of a human being, it is definitely necessary to have a concept that, firstly, develops the proposals in a longer consensually guided manner and then requires more than "yes" or "no" votes in order to accept a proposal as decided by the majority. The principle of systemic consensus always involves a series of proposals, which are evaluated on the basis of the least inner resistance (each proposal is initially taken for itself). With a scaling, for example from 0-10. 0 means: I have no resistance towards this proposal. 10 means: I have the highest resistance towards it. The averages are given according to feeling. The proposal with the lowest total resistance number is then adopted.

People basically do not like losers. Even the winners feel uncomfortable with the losers. A person feels most at ease when he goes home after a community meeting and has the impression that everyone is satisfied. Systemic consensus is therefore a framework that makes reason and consideration possible and turns away from the competition and winner-loser principle. It pays into humans want for weighing up between things.

However, I find the promises on the website rather questionable. No matter what people do, there will never be a real "end" to something, conflicts are and will always be part of human life ... I do not think it is reasonable to offer such a promising full-bodied prospect. Also here the inherent intelligence of the people is faster (the unconscious already knows that rescue promises never keep what they offer). Conflicts can be welcomed because they create space for cooperation. Those parts in a human who rejects conflicts do not want to take the time to grow and work on them.