Mind alliance

Coordinated Effort

By Rom Antony Day

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Abstract: Coordinated Effort = Goal-Based, Individual Responsibility, and Gain-Based Agreed Team-Effort

Coordinated Effort refers to team or group effort towards an identified and communicated goal or main mission with specific individual responsibilities and gains. In older writings it is often referred to as the master mind alliance. This latter term does not refer at all to any particular individual being the master in any way. It only refers to the figurative speech that the way of thinking and working towards a goal has reached a, for example sake, master degree level of education -- a more advanced level. Author Stephen Covey of the book the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People stated it similarly when he refers to the progress from dependence to independence, and from independence to interdependence with the creation of win/win situations and to achieve synergy.

Furthermore the author of the term master mind alliance and it sources of information might have stated that they used the various principles in order to guide themselves well and prevent unquestionable loyalty to any other individual. Instead, they suggested the use of these principles as a self-measurement tape. This ability to look at one-self introspectively and to make decision with the use of general principles was pretty important then and still because many an individuals have become autocrats that destroy their team members. As such these principles do provide a balance to prevent the cult mentality or dictatorship seen in many countries. It provides the individual a powerful set of values which he or she can use to assess what their leader, boss or other authority figure requests to be done. Such people are humans and frequently are unable to restrain their goals because they fail to submit their emotions and power of the will to a superior faculty of the mind such as the faculty of the reason. Therefore, the presence of individuals that are capable to question them and to state a dissension in opinion and / or vote, which the many principles stated on this web page will help you to, becomes so paramount that such an individual could be life-sustaining to a team, company, community, county, district, city, state and nation. The ability to question authority figures intelligently and not give-in to peer pressure or mere political pressure exemplifies the American value of individuality. Without this value and courage the founder of the U.S.A. who flew England, developed the 13 colonies and declared independence from the United Kingdom 300 plus years ago would not have been able to do it. They disagreed with decisions the kingdom did, and thus moved on to seek and declare independence of the 13 colonies and to develop The United States of America as a country formally organized independent from England and no longer a sub-division of it. The U.S.A. was designed as a republic not merely a country or a nation. A republic means that the voters elect representatives into highly respected offices to make decisions in their best interest of the people who put them in office and of the country based on laws and the constitution of the U.S.A. The ability of the elected officers is enhanced with the use of the democratic process through which they seek input from the voters. However, if they make poor decision that are hurting us in a democracy they are not accountable because they do what the majority of the people wanted, and since in a democracy form of government decision making is based on what is popular instead of what would be in the best interest of the nation, the people do not have in such form of government the right to recall them via an election process. They have only one of two recourses. They are usually to wait until next election period and try to defeat the contenders or engage in a war.

While one the one hand a democratic form of government allows the majority of the people to dictate to their elected officers what to do, it is without any safe-guards against the unforeseen consequences for their decisions.

On the other hand, although a republic form of government does not allow voters to dictate to their representatives what to do, the voters are allowed to provide their views in an organized, structured and timed manner. Most importantly this ability to give such input as to what might be best for the people and the nation comes with more than one safeguard against faulty decision making on the part of the elected officers. The first safeguard in my view is that the individual elected officer as a decision maker on how to cast a vote has to make the decision after all the collected and analyzed information. No one can make the individual elected officer to voter either which way (yes, no or abstain) on a law making issue-at-hand. Consequently, the voters who elected the individual officer are not to be blamed for any undesirable outcomes from elected officer’s decisions. This makes common sense to me totally because when the people take the time to provide input regardless of their expertise on the matter, the politician ought to be thankful for it and use it to supplement his / her own knowledge, skills, ability, education data collection and expert advice. For this reason the ability to discern and think justly becomes paramount to the people we put in office. They alone in their most quite moment must make decisions that shape the present and future. So, the first guard is that because the elected officer has to make final decision on how to cast a vote, he / she most never be a lazy thinker. This person needs to be an active thinker who can sort-out and categorize the data gathered, analyze it, and recommend a decision to a governing body via a vote. Hence whenever the voters do not like the decisions made as a voting track-record would show, the voters may want to pursue guard number two; this guard that keeps voters out of harm’s way in spite of any erroneous opinions they might make during an input stage is a very powerful one that allows the voter to fix a mistake made in who we elect to office. The recall process provides a peaceful civic process for the voters to remove from office the representatives whom they thought would represent their interests and the country’s interest well --- but is not per the results of votes casted. This process might be a very complex, tedious and expensive one. Nevertheless, that is another safeguard in itself that prevents unjustified recalls that are for self-interest merely and not in the best interest of the people of The United States of American and of the republic itself.

The recall process allows the elected individuals to remain focused on their duty to make decisions in the best interest of the Union (The United States of America) and the people instead of basing their decision on a popularity contest as it may be in other forms of government such as democracies and dictatorships.

The founders wrote the constitution to provide a form of government for a republic so that we, the people, can prevent high officials from trading the American freedoms, rights and responsibilities – voting is a responsibility of every U.S.A. Citizen but many fail to carry it out-- away for their sole interest. This form of government in which voter can throw-out of office the elected officers via the recall process coupled with the fact that any attempt to overthrow the form of, not its elected officers, government of the United States of America would be considered a treasonous act provides self-protection to it, and thus prevents any attempt to make the U.S.A. and its people return to a lower place in the world such a colonial status under its origin nation, that was England. Although the United Kingdom is one of the greatest allies and where much of the development and improvement of our justice system arose, I am thankful to the writers of the U.S.A. declaration of independence whom built-in such protection to always keep the United States of America and its form of government as a republic.