Dave, as regards to your Tiered government ideas. I am still working my way though the chapters. I like you have videos.
TDG probably works well based on what you consider to be good and bad government and good\bad social policies. What I am curious about is how well it would work with ideas\values that others consider important, but you disagree?
One example could be on the Roe Vs Wade. I have no idea where you stand on the issue, but I suspect tiered government would result in an outcome that supports your personal perspective, which suggests those who disagree would be forced to accept that the tried government laws that do not support their values.
We could even use slavery as an issue; if TDG was put into place originally back in the 1700s. How would it have dealt with slavery so that TDG quickly and effectively made slavery illegal when a majority of the south's economic hard labor workforce was dependent to slavery. The slave states would not have given up slavery based on some moral argument or even moral pressure or guilt. Hell, upstanding religious leaders of the time had sex with their very young female slaves and had no moral issue with it (underage rape) because slaves were not perceived to be "human beings", slaves were no different than owning cattle or a pet. Maybe tiered government could only work moving forward, and would not work the further back in history we go. A bit like taking a radio, TV, cell phone back in time. Such devices would not work because the lack of infrastructure required to make them operate.
What I can agree with is that all governments are destine to die and will be replaced with better more efficient forms of governments that protect human rights over economic rights of cooperations and power controlling religions. I say they all die because historically they all have died to be replaced by something that else, which historically has been a progression forward, not backwards. Occasionally, there have been tests of long term governing ideas (ie democracy vs dictatorships), where there is one step backwards before taking more steps forward.
Thanks for taking a serious look at the TDG. I'm glad you like the videos. In my mind, they are OK, but I would like to do them over again. I have a plan to rework the website if there is more interest.
You have asked a great question: How does a citizen handle a TDG decision that the citizen does not like?
On one level, the citizen will handle such a decision in the same way as decision of western democracy: Just put up with it.
On a higher level, the TDG citizen should also realize that the TDG has found some capable people and put them into a consultative decision-making process. The citizen will realized that these people analyzed the issue from different perspectives, consulted with experts, had access to a lot of data and information, and looked at history. While the citizen may still disagree with the decision, the citizen should recognize that the decision-making body had a lot more tools to come to that decision. The citizen should just let the decision carry through its natural course to find out whether it was right or wrong.
Decisions from western democracies may be altruistically motivated and derived from the process described above. But the decision may also have vested interests influencing it. The average citizen often believes that these vested interests play a more important role in formulating public decision, so the whole process is discredited--even when altruism is the prime motivator. With the TDG, the vested interest component of a decision mostly disappears. Therefore TDG decisions will be more respected--even if there is some citizenry disagreement.
Abortion is a good example. I would say that future TDG decision makers--if they were so inclined to be anti-abortionists--would realize that banning abortions will not stop abortions. The ban will just drive the medical procedure underground, and probably cause a lot of different societal problems. I do believe that TDG representatives will be both realistic and flexible in finding solutions to various social issues. And I think that keeping their sex drive under control will encourage the general citizenry to be a little more mindful of their desires as well. Any ways, that is far into the future, and I don't want to speculate too much.
In 2014, I had an interesting discussion with a fellow from Atlanta. He wanted to put some humanistic principles in the early TDG constitutions. At first, I was rather hesitant as too many of these principles could be a cause of division, and hinder the start of teh TDG. Then I thought: We could put in some basic principles that many could agree with. So I recommend that early TDG builders find some words to lead to eliminating racism and gender inequality. Many people can still get behind these principles--and putting these principles in place will keep a real toxic attitude away from the TDG.
If the early builders want to put in more humanistic principles into their early TDG constitutions, they have the freedom to do so. It will be a good social experiment to conduct, and time will tell whether my suspicions of having too many principles is a hindrance or not. With this knowledge, other early TDGs will learn.
As for the TDG somehow endorsing slavery, I can't see it. If a TDG locality is being built with this mindset motivating it, I don't think it will be capable of joining with other local TDGs, let alone commanding enough respect and trust from the general citizenry to eventually assume authority and responsibility of governance.
And we should be mindful that we are in a state of evolution in so many things. My heritage is the peasant classes of Eastern Europe. If you had told my great-grandparents that they could have a say in governance--and throw out inept or corrupt leaders--they would have deemed that as impossible. But their children did come to Canada and experienced that part of western democracy; my maternal grandfather just loved voting! In a like manner, the building of the TDG will provide a new experience for our progeny. They will look back and wonder why we were so silly. But the truth will be that we had to learn some new ways to give them a better world.