Exceeding the Limits of Interaction in a Community Leads to Control
Social cooperation, harmony and integrity upon values, and having your voice heard and represented unanimously, are based upon the interaction each member as with others. There are limits to this interaction based on the amount of people in a community. The larger the community, the less someone’s voice can be heard in a fair unanimous representation. There is only a certain amount of time to go around.
If your community goes beyond the interaction/interconnection each member can have with other members, exclusion takes place. Some people are less heard, or not heard at all, because we all have limited time and we can’t all speak and have everyone here us. If your voice is not heard, you are drowned out and the affect you have on on the direction of the community is reduced. If everyone has their hand up trying to be heard, you are limited to how many people can here you. There are logical limits to interaction in a community that affect how a person is unanimously represented.
Eventually, those who are more excluded from the greater interaction/interconnection will form their own sub-groups of connection and interaction, hence another community within the larger community. The social integrity is not there when the limits are exceeded too much, such as major towns and cities. People’s voices are not represented in theirautonomous unanimous power as an individual. Everything gets relegated to representative voting through elections. People are not representing themselves in a unanimous community direction. They have less personal responsibility to direct their own lives. Their personal responsibility is abdicated through having someone else represent them and being responsible for directing aspects of their lives, instead of them representing themselves in self-governance.
When there are too many people, there is too much disconnection between all members for a voice to be heard all around in a unanimous fair representative way of living. There is too much lack of interaction between each member towards each other, and eventually true individual consent is replaced with group collective consent dynamics.
There are groups within groups with different interests, and then eventually one ring to rule them all, one leader that decides things for everyone. This is not unanimous decision making. This is a progressive degeneration of freedom of the individual towards a collective centralized authority of control.
This control is created through confusion, ignorance and fear by having people abdicate their personal responsibility to represent themselves in life and having someone else represent their interests and responsibility in life. There is also a tendency to only care about others close to us, that we have interaction with, and created closer relationships and trust with as a result. Generally for most people, those we don’t interact with are of less concern to us and are not heard. Subgroups will still produce exclusion within the larger context unless everyone can represent themselves in a unanimous manner.
The disconnection in cooperative mutual agreement brings about a centralization of control. Communities need to stay small for their voices to be heard, or else it gets lost in the crowd and everyone is left holding their hands up trying to get attention to be heard.
A unanimous society has decisions acted upon when everyone agrees. Objection are valid if they can demonstrate why a proposed decision is wrong, because it creates harm or injures. Everyone has a say and is heard to agree or object to how the society will progress forward. Once a decision is reached, then a representative of that decision can do the same to unify smaller communities into a larger direction overall for everyone in a wider or global community, but it all starts with the individual power and their voice being heard fairly.