Forming an NGO -- was Re: [MG] Wise Use of Funds Raised
Ed Pastore
epastore at metagovernment.org
Mon Jun 17 23:00:41 EDT 2013
I've spoken to some intermediate organizations and looked into quite a few funders. It seems rather universal that all American funders have a prerequisite of the organization holding 501c3 status (i.e., be a registered "charitable" organization). The only exceptions I have seen are some prizes, fellowships, scholarships, etc. which are directed more toward individual recipients... but nonetheless usually not a great match for us.
I've tried looking into international organizations to see how they are structured, and as best as I can tell, usually they are hacked onto the nation-based model. Organizations such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace operate as nation-based organizations all over the world, but their top-level governance is either not really registered as an official organization at all (in the case of AI), or is registered in a single country (in the case of GP). I think. And the real work is mostly done by nation-based organizations. It's all very sloppy and an artifact of this state-based world we do in fact still live in. Until such time as we can improve on the statehood situation, we may need to go with the flow.
I've tried looking into the Belgian international organization <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_association_without_lucrative_purpose>, but have not made much headway. It seems like pursuing that option would necessarily entail significant investment in high-end international legal resources. And I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile.
So taking all the above into account, yes, it very well may be the most straight-forward approach to start an American non-profit. And perhaps it would also be perfectly reasonable for others to start non-profits in their country as well. But we should probably try one and see if we can create a model. I'm willing to start working on it unless I get some significant objections...?
On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Ned Conner wrote:
> Hi Ed and Mark -- Great Posts!
>
> Ed, I am right there with you in understanding that it is all about resources. Some of us have funds available to donate; some of us feel called to work on new governance systems, and do so to the extent that we are able (self-supported and/or donation supported). More resources would be a very good thing. As you say, the window of danger and opportunity is upon us.
>
> Setting up an American non-profit corporation and then funding it through grants and such is a common model, and can work. Worth a shot if there is evidence that it might. Beyond that, there are also other funding models that can work (as you probably know much better than I). Brainstorming with a range of potential donors might be useful. (Brainstorming with potential recipients of donations, or with middle-man agents of donors (foundations, etc.), would probably be less useful -- the donors are the drivers.)
>
> Because the work that we are doing (towards true democracy, etc.) is not really in the self-serving best interests of the Carnegies and Rockefellers and Mellons, or their agents, formality may not be our friend when it comes to finding funding. New paradigms become attractive (to independent donors, developers, and participants) when those working within the paradigm are having the most fun, and making the best progress.
>
> Mark, I very much agree that it would be a good idea for us to set up a new sovereign state sort of entity (not geographically defined -- global in reach), and have our new governance systems operate in that context. To me, "run parallel and render obsolete" seems a much better strategy than "try to compete directly within rotten and rigged systems".
>
> I confess that I didn't follow your references to the freemasons and such, but this particular thread may not be the appropriate place to have that discussion. You are the one in the best position to know how you can help. If you have proposals that you could make (with specificity and particularity), that would be great, and I and others could respond.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 6/17/2013 8:30 AM, Mark Giza wrote:
>>
>> Did you ever think composing it as a soveriegn state?
>> Now a lot of soveriegners get looked down upon.
>> I have been speaking very highly of this system.
>> Actually I had the idea to do it years ago and was pleased to see your group had already done the footwork.
>> Now realize the united states is diminishing collection of states and corporations.
>> So basically its like trying to invest in amway. That time has passed. Its a ghost ship.
>> Now to get approval from the freemasons.
>> You need to seperate yourself but promote ideas they are trying to accomplish currently.
>> Like the north american union.
>> So basically establish your own state.
>> Offer people a clean slate and new identity when they join.
>> The united states wouldn't like that but if you play your cards right and support the new world order at this time they will look at it as a supporting state.
>> I have put tons of time into this.
>> I have lots of support from the anonymous organization.
>> So when you establish your own state which is just a matter of paperwork and I would be honored to help with.
>> I would consider helping 100% with your movement.
>> United states is a dying dog. Nothing more.
>> They are deliberatly destroying the economy to force the public into buying into the north american union.
>> Which is fine with me. The us is on autopilot for desteuction.
>> But if you establish yourself as a friendly state.
>> Support the masonic views and lead on to helping them accomplish a common goal. I'm sure it won't be a problem using the Amero as the new currency to finance your project.
>> I have about ten years of research of creating new states and international law.
>> Let me know if your interested.
>> Ttyl
>> Namaste
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2013 7:45 AM, "Ed Pastore" <epastore at metagovernment.org <mailto:epastore at metagovernment.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Ned. The idea I have been floating on the Votorola list is
>> just that: an idea I'm mulling over. I brought it up prematurely
>> because of the post Rhett had made there. But it is all about
>> resources.
>>
>> Currently, the resources I have available for Metagov are tiny
>> scraps of time I manage to eke out between the heavy demands of my
>> job, my business, and caring for a sick family-member.
>>
>> I would prefer for Metagov to be my full-time job, but the only
>> practical way for me to make that happen is to organize it as an
>> American non-profit corporation. Then I could work up to spending
>> significant amounts of time writing grant proposals to foundations
>> in the hopes of building up a treasury which we could then use to
>> fund publicity efforts as well as to fund coding projects (plus I
>> could work on making back-end improvements such as expanding on
>> the limitations of the list server).
>>
>> I've repeatedly floated the idea of creating a formal
>> organization, but I've had a lot of trouble with the idea of
>> making it an American company. It just seems wrong for our group
>> to be tied to one country. Especially the United States, where
>> relatively few of our members reside and where the tax laws are
>> intrusive and burdensome. There's also a lot of legal work to be
>> done to figure out if we can create a non-profit which is governed
>> not by a board of directors but by collaborative governance. On
>> the other hand, the U.S. is the place where a large bulk of the
>> moneyed foundations reside; and generally they only fund American
>> non-profits ("501c3's").
>>
>> Rather than figuring out what to do with the scarce resources we
>> have now, I would love the opportunity to grow them into a more
>> formidable stash. I am open to ideas, suggestions, alternative
>> thinking, etc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Ned Conner wrote:
>>
>>> There is an active thread over on the Votorola listserv that is
>>> raising many important issues for discussion:
>>> *A New Party Dedicated to Implementing Public Voting*.
>>>
>>> The root links to the thread are:
>>> http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001748.html
>>> http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001753.html
>>> http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-June/001749.html (and
>>> following)
>>>
>>> As often happens when we try to use listserv platforms for
>>> rational discourse, the thread started out as a specific
>>> invitation from Rhett Pepe to Michael Allen, and has since
>>> morphed into a wide-ranging informal conversation between Michael
>>> Allen and Ed Pastore. (As an aside, to effectively and
>>> efficiently support decision making through rational discourse,
>>> we need a system that features professional profiling and
>>> automatic multi-threading of each unit and sub-unit of the
>>> discourse, and that structurally, procedurally, reliably,
>>> transparently connects the discourse outcome to the decision
>>> outcome. Blinap alone among all extant decision system designs
>>> provides these features. The listserv platform has none of these
>>> features.)
>>>
>>> Below is a list dealing with one issue, extracted from the
>>> thread, of aims and values and objectives and strategies, with my
>>> addition appended.
>>>
>>> * Rhett wants to start a new (mixed-format) political party
>>> (and run for city council), as a means to infiltrate
>>> Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy.
>>> * Ed wants freedom from representation.
>>> * Ed wants consensus-oriented direct democracy.
>>> * Ed is also (like Rhett) considering founding a mixed-format
>>> party, as a stepping stone.
>>> * Ned thinks that using our scarce resources to directly
>>> compete against entrenched powers (that have vastly more
>>> resources) on their own turf (in our currently existing
>>> polyarchies) would be a monumental waste of our scarce
>>> resources. We can more quickly and efficiently create a
>>> more effective global "bully pulpit" if we do not engage in
>>> the utter waste of competing directly (creating political
>>> parties, running for office, buying advertising, funding
>>> political campaigns, etc.).
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>>> http://www.metagovernment.org/
>>> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>>> <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>>> Manage subscription:
>>> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>> http://www.metagovernment.org/
>> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>> <mailto:Start at metagovernment.org>
>> Manage subscription:
>> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>> http://www.metagovernment.org/
>> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>> Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola
More information about the Votorola
mailing list