Don’t make it harder than it is. Every living thing makes decisions;
Proposal #253; It is proposed that we build a bridge over Niagara falls for the following reason(s);
-a purpose A
-b purpose B
**** Any counter proposals?
debate
debate
debate
Resolution carries
Proposal #260; It is proposed that Bill Hecksly put together a project plan for the Niagara Bridge for the following reason;
-a Bill is the only one of us that knows anything about bridges
**** Any counter proposals?
Resolution carries
Proposal #271; It is proposed that the following plan be used to build the Niagara bridge;
The plan presumably laid out who would be doing what and when as per prior Constitutional guidelines and Amendments. Break out the coffee and donuts and get to work.
What a normal corporation does and what the CRH recommends are almost identical with one serious exception.
A corporation or a proprietorship uses a dictatorial type of assignment for each task. In the case of the corporation, the higher dictator is a group of shareholders who vote rather than an individual as in the proprietorship (“company”).
The CRH suggests to have rationality be the dictator, not a person or group of people. That is how rationality gets increased in society over political passion struggles. If you don’t authorize rationality, it cannot increase in use and in its place are efforts to deceive to the best advantage of individual members - passion politics.
Oh yes, Yorick. Bravo! What grand wisdom without hardly any effort.
Your mom died in a car accident just now? Really, define that as a problem.
Identify your assumptions in thinking that was a problem.
Disregard everything you were thinking as it being a problem because who cares.
Then “Your mom” = “The world”. She wasn’t that good
Isn’t that what you were asking for though, solving the world in a really simplified way?
I did get what you meant reeeally, I wasn’t mocking you (though this post so far has been pretty mocking but do forgive me). My three step offering was actually consistent with the amor fati outlook that takes my preference.
That aside, taking tragedies gravely and fearfully as I presume you intended us to, my solution is:
Overthrow bouregoise Capitalist States on an international scale
Install a proletariat dictatorship in the form of a Socialist State
Watch the State wither away as Communism establishes itself
Your system cannot take place unless the state is genuinely detached from any kind of outside statetal control (political bias and thus, conditioning). No goverment will allow a set (group) of people to settle anywhere in their territory if they do not abide by the rules of the state. Unless the group manages to somehow find a place which is not already governed (owned by a country) that state cannot ever start. It will also, be deprived from the obvious benefits of being part of the current system, healthcare ect.
Umm, I ask is consuming drug defined as happiness? What if a group decides it is rationale to raid other groups to get the resources that they need to get the drugs. Define rationale since i expect you will say it would not be a rationale decision.
Propaganda is needed and thus, conditioning. people already think capitalism is great, general term, so you would have to convince,condition people that this is a better method.
i can agree to that if it means, people with same ideals.
Emotions and as a result ways of thinking are acquired by conditioning. This is why, people of the same group tend to like the same things, People from england like football, people in the USA like baseball and it also determines the intensity with which they are liked. Where they are born increases the chances of what they will like. in the same way people of any group tend to have similar emotional and rationale levels. It is not 100% emotional or rationale but they do not have to be as such because the overall population determines the mood the social system. E.G. that einstein lived some part of his live in Germany it does not mean that the population got more intelligent.
Who said anything about not obeying the laws of the land??
Nothing prevents you from joining a group of people who merely do what they say, say what they do, and record WHY they are doing it. What country doesn’t allow that?
I thought that I answered that. Rationale == logical process toward a chosen goal.
If one group were to invade another, people would do what they have always done, except do it with collective rationality. They defend themselves more rationally. They choose everything they do with more rationality, collectively determined rationality. They still do what they might normally do otherwise. And they still pay the consequences for their choices.
You are assuming 3 things;
that you as a group have reason to care what others do or not.
people only need propaganda if they need persuading beyond what they would otherwise choose.
that the mere display of success of your group is insufficient to cause the idea to spread.
Ten people working as a rational group can always do far more than ten individuals.
But then it would not be a repubilc because it would be bind up by the established rules, no matter what happens your lives will still be dictated by the already established dogmas. In this case where is the real autonomy? What desicions are you left with other than i want my house to be like this and I will buy this stuff. I mean it is not really a state but a group within an already established state. There is nothing new to that.
What is the difference between that and the current U.S foreign policy? Anyones foreing policy really.
I do not seem to get what you are getting at, this seems to contradict itself. You care and you do not care?
People wont like to hear that their current lifestyle sucks and that they should try a new one unless they hate the current one. (most people like capitalism). Afterall propaganda is needed to spread the word around, and convince ofcourse.
Well… to work it has to start so you have to adress the first issue.
I am happy to see that someone actually made a document to propose solutions. I much prefer this kind of effort as opposed to people oxymoronically saying “fuck the world, everything’s fine” but just in more intellectual jello-pudding philosophy “educated” terms. So CRH is, yes, the kind of thing I love to see. Here’s my problem. It seems to imply “Everything is fine as long as it’s rational. If the rational steak doesn’t drive into the ground more thorough just drive it harder with a bigger mallet”
There are too many vague interpretations for any one situation as to what the rational solution is. If the rational course is the supposed result of a debate, just look to the forum for your example of that success. We begin debates, and rarely if ever conclude anything of importance. I do believe snippets of it are still very useful. As a whole, I don’t know if the beast has hope.
As far as the critique goes that the document has no hope if you can’t find a real world nation to support it, I don’t think that holds water. It’s theory, not applied politics. It isn’t so unconventional to conceptualize a city that starts from scratch in a fairly politically neutral territory. (eg, It’s on an ocean base like sealand. Be creative).
That’s a sweeping assumption. Most people endure capitalism. A lot of people believe that real democratic power is a lost art. Perhaps what you’re trying to point out is that the far right will obviously not agree with the far left.
You seem to be missing the key elements concerning what makes it work. I thought we were going to get into that on your site.
Deciding what is or isn’t rational involves attempts at being logical after goals are chosen. Rational Debating is nothing like what you see on these forums (that should be pretty obvious). For rational debating, there must be a logic moderator who simply keeps the debate on a logic based track. If a relevant question is posed, it must be addressed. If assertions are made that have not been either agreed to in premise or substantiated by argument, they must be removed or supported. The objective is resolution, not competition.
Rational Debating Perfect Logical Presentation can be a guide, but the point is that one of the members is assigned the task of ensuring basic logical form in the debating so as to stay away from political jousting as you see throughout the world as well as on these forums. It is a little like a court room wherein the judge ensures that the debate stays not merely civil, but exactly to the point… and to each point with nothing being left out and time isn’t wasted repeating issues or merely playing mind games.
Learning
But beyond the debating process is the issue that everyone gets to see the debating and participate. It is not a competition, but an effort to resolve the most rational decision by any means. Due to this, every member knows exactly why any decision or rule is being made. Because it is always required to be recorded, for generations, everyone gets to see why things were done as they were without the worry of who is trying to politically trick them into something. This causes learning, not only of the current generation, but all generations to come.
In addition, in merely learning why things are being done and why they used to be done differently, the actual use of rational thought becomes instilled due to it being the required process for change, rather than the old passion politics method. Every member is exposed to and practiced in the attempt to be more rational. It is not necessary that anyone be perfectly good at it at any time. They improve and increase in intelligence merely by the practice and exposure. It is a process that inherently restores sanity.
Adaptability
Every generation would be expected to make mistakes in their reasoning. But because it is always documented precisely, anyone can come along and find corrections that might make for important changes, “Do we really have to do things the way we have been?”
But something that is very important is the speed with which a group can adapt to a new situation or newly discovered reasoning. The laws and decisions are being made strictly by the debating process, thus any resolution is immediately law regardless of how long some other rule had been in place. Tradition has no more say than by what the people desire to stick to by choice. Passion voting could take a very long time and is riddled with opportunities for corruption.
Freedom of Choices
Although Rational Debating is the underlying scheme, it must be realized that nothing can be said to be rational until a goal is chosen. The rationale comes into merely how to accomplish the goal. The goal itself is not an issue of rationality unless it interferes with some other goal already in effect. Thus anyone can propose anything as a goal quite freely and if there is no counter proposal, it immediately passes.
Do you get to participate in making those policies? Or even get to really see exactly what they really are? - That is the biggest difference. But even more, anyone who proposes anything more logically sound, immediately wins the day. It is not a question of buying votes.
Each group is making their decisions based on their groups needs. What other people choose to do or not, is the business of other people. The world’s history is filled with groups who quietly hide their own reasoning so as to take advantage of others. They don’t want others to be rational. Whether any group cares about other people is their choice to make. Else you are talking about a dictatorship, not a democracy.
No one is forced into anything. The groups choose what they decide themselves. Other groups or individuals choose for themselves. Where is the need for propaganda?
That is exactly true. Getting the first item merely so it can be seen and any refinements worked in, requires special people dedicated to getting that done. The first group is not only the hardest to assemble, but requires people who can see it from the abstract design stand point without having to see it physically in action. On top of that, they have to be people who have any reason to care.
Passion Voting
The normal (for today) voting processes are not strictly forbidden on any level of decision making other than the constitutional level. If it is rationally decided that a vote should be taken, then do the rational thing and take a vote. This would rationally apply to many things such as merely who what chicken rather than steak for dinner. A group could even rationally decide that everything should be by passion vote only without any rational debating. But above that level must always be the ability to propose rationale against the idea of always voting on everything.
Thus you get the best of both worlds. If reversed, allowing passion voting to dictate on the highest level, you could only choose to become rationale based by passion political procedures and manipulations which will always be under psychological control from a few members or from outside forces. As long as rationality is the highest level of decision making available, there will always be hope of learning and growing stronger. The reverse is not true.
If the rest of your post was outlining what the “key elements” are, then I’m still missing it. Perhaps pretty well the entire world is missing it and only you are the anointed observer who clearly understands this.
It only reinforces my assertions that it drives the cause of logic and reason without really identifying mechanisms as to what implements those things. What is perfect logical representation? Have you somehow distilled perfection out of all the cosmic chaos? Shall you provide the world with a text by which mankind for the first time and till the end of time attains its salvation? Your representation of perfect logical presentation is a list of examples for the conditional symbol.
The site is a short and easy canvas. If the art is as great as you believe it is, there is a canvas, paint. I’m not the driving force there you are. I am still interested, but gradually losing that interest dependent on how much argument reiterates the same claims and yet doesn’t offer new and specific ideas. It does nothing to reiterate that you feel other people are simply too dimwitted to comprehend this grand ultimate scheme. Because if they are too dimwitted, you are wasting your time.
I’m glad you cleared that up, because the only logical solution therefore is to delete the forum, since rational debate is nothing like it, therefore it is irrational, irrational things are to be removed, therefore the forum is to be removed. Can we get a moderator to verify that I made a logical deduction from the above sentence?
Hypothesis: There are interesting morsels in this CRH business, but it’s not proving to solve problems.
Basis: Lots of argument, no social change. What does it need? Funding? Make an executive summary like you would give to the bank. Afterall, that’s the logical way to base projected results on confirmed necessity.
Conclusion: dude, just give it a go. You don’t need devout followers, you just need interest. If you didn’t have interest you wouldn’t be getting replies. Work at it, refine it, rerepresent it. Don’t drive a steak. And quit telling people they “clearly don’t understand” because it’s not solving the problem of presenting what you believe is such an ultimate solution.
What if the rationale desicion is to not let everyone know about certain things, as it is now?
So your system will be somewhat similar to natural selection, start a new group, if/when it fails start a new one after that?
Isnt it a bit to similar to what we have already?
prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Show Spelled
[prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
–noun
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement
The mere spreading of “the word” that hey this is new and it working is defined as propaganda.
When something new is taken into consideration it is immeadiately attacked, Crh, by me and others for example, some level of explanation (convincing) is needed and thus, propaganda since that is what it is defined as.
I think you did not understand the word like here, poeple will always try and maintain their current lifestyle (generally speaking), the problem with Crh is that the advantages are better seen in the longer term and so it will be really hard to get people off their rutine. By like I mean they prefer. (generally speaking.)
Then you would be proposing that being rational requires that you never tell anyone anything yourself. And that means that the current government, requiring you to not hide from them, would be requiring you to be irrational… by law.
But if for whatever reason, your group decides in debate that it cannot divulge something going on, all it has to do is propose the exact method by which that item is to be concealed and WHY. If it doesn’t even do that, the group cannot maintain rationality, nor any of its members. Later that same item might be proposed to be opened again, but only by rational debate.
What do you call “failing”? The group is merely trying to discover what is most rational for themselves. When is that a bad idea?
And the only similarity is in small businesses, not any current governments.
Only if it is being done so as to exercise undo influence. Proselytizing and propaganda is not the same as merely sharing information.
As explained before, it takes unusually sharp people to form the initial group because they have no example to follow. The US Constitution had the same problem. Even the idea of voting had that same problem, “Hey instead of one King, let’s form a group of king’s that vote and the majority will always force the others to go along.” - Think how many problems and corruptions that system has instilled, yet it is still used today throughout the world, but it was once brand new.
The whole point is to allow for everyone to follow what they can see is the better idea. Now if at some point everyone thinks one idea is the better idea, are you suggesting that they don’t do it because everyone doing the best thing is a bad thing? And if by some rationale it really is, then obviously they aren’t all going to be doing it because such was a bad idea.
The entire scheme is the ultimate in democracy, yet is extremely fast at adapting. In the long run, it has a faster response time than the current US military.
“Many others”, but the entire rest of the population then becomes merely their slaves in every case. In the CRH, everyone gets to see exactly why they are doing everything and has a say about it. It is the closet thing to extreme anarchy and extreme order at the same time that you can get, all the while encouraging people toward rational thinking rather than irrational self-defeat.
That is true in political systems like the ones people have to suffer under now. But it isn’t true in rational systems where reasoning has higher authority, much like in Science.
The entire CRH is similar to Science except even better. In Science open experimental debate is touted and used as reason to accept or deny conclusions. One experiment, if approved to be conducted, will have perhaps one or two other groups do the same experiment to show that independent studies were done. With the CRH, in effect, 100,000 or more replicate the rationale to see if they agree to it. No one is accepting some idea merely because someone else thought it was great for everyone.
Currently any federal law immediately covers over a 3000 mile continent. But the likelihood that the entire range of such laws are really appropriate throughout is minimal. The CRH can accomplish the same thing without causing even one case where the law must be applied yet wasn’t actually rational. For example, a group of handicappers do not have to lobby Congress to get attention to the fact that the new law disregarded their situation. With CRH, the “new law” never touches them in the first place.
Better to pay the good than to ignore it, else you are only paying the bad and starving the good.
