Solve the world in 3 steps.

What decision could not be “arrived at”?

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.

you said this:

then you said

This implies that the first statement would be an irrational decision.

Nope, just detailing a thought of what to expect, I assumed that you where expecting the republics to be numerous and plenty I am simply pointing out that groups in the long run will look very similar.

Better said, has the potential to have a say about it, very few people, realisticly, are going to be involved in the debate process. It will still be the few, dictating the many. Only that this will now be done under the curtain of “rationality.”

Let us assume that their is a communist republic that wishes to turn to a democracy, it is unrealistic that this would be done immeadiately as it will most likely make the state decend into chaos.

Which evolved due to the characteristics of human nature.

Essencially it seems that CRH, deals with organization of smalll group whereby this ensures that any laws implemented are indeed relevant to that group. However, is there a cap to how small a group should be? If people are let to decide groups are likely to be… well very big, due to the current economic system and the transport and demographics.

Exactly my point.

Nope, just detailing a thought of what to expect, I assumed that you where expecting the republics to be numerous and plenty I am simply pointing out that groups in the long run will look very similar.
[/quote]
Well you proposed that they might. I pointed out, “so what?”. But in fact, they will NOT be alike at all other than their fundamental Constitution. People must behave so as to compensate for their individual situation. And that is never the same for everyone.

On the contrary. It is “rational” that they be taught how to participate and the potnetial they have, similar to teaching students “Civics”.

But look at the numbers in even the worst case of hardly any within each group participating. If there were a million such groups (a modest estimate), at least 4 million would be participating in making the decisions. How many actually make the decisions for 20 million people as it is today? I would estimate really only 4-20.

So as it is; 1 out of 1 million
Under CRH; 1 out of 5

As did Kingdoms. Yet how many rule the world today?

Any less than 4 is critically dangerous to the integrity of the design. Checks and balances require either distinction or serious honesty.

But the CRH mandates that the population MAY NOT exceed the physical ability to truly represent the needs and situation of every member. Thus, depending on technology and prowess, I would expect groups to range from 20 to 70. But Reality is the guide.

Actually to more precisely answer the OP;

In steps;

1. Realize what Reality is
2. Find a means to help track the needs it imposes upon you
3. Let Reality guide your system.

What I have proposed is;

1. The realization of what Reality actually is; Rational Metaphysics and Existence Meaningfully Defined (I should add one for “The Meaning and Methods of Life”).
2. CRH is a means to help track Reality and the needs it imposes upon Life, by people rationally working together.
3. Assuming (2) is established, Let Reality dictate what should be done each day.

Then under CRH it would not be rationale and thus prohibited to conclude that:

?

I am not saying that they will the same just that they will become very similar. They might have some tweaks here and there but in the long run the big proposals will be very alike.

Even with the knowledge very few people will actually get involved in the process.

Fair enough. However, where does morality fit in a rationale country? When you say logicwhat exactly do you mean? For example, giving health care to people who have chronic diseases is very expensive, such as necrophilia, would not it be logical to get them out pof the health care system?

You mean a population the size of the U.S.A divided into 70 groups or a group of 70 people?

Your proposal was that telling anyone what you are doing would be irrational. The opposite is actual true with a few exceptions (it depends on who you are telling and what you are telling).

So you believe that a homosexual city dweller would become “very similar” to a heterosexual farmer?

How involved they get is up to them to rationally decide. You are proposing that it would be irrational for them to get involved in the decisions that affect their lives. How would that be rational?

That is for them to debate. If any member disagrees substantially but cannot come up with any rationale for his claim, then he should find a different group more in line with his thinking (or lack of), else he is causing a disharmony to develop within himself as well as the group. He always has the freedom to change groups.

I mean that a population of 300,000,000 would probably have about 10,000,000 groups. It is an exact analogy to the body having billions of cells. Each group is a cell of the over-all body. Within that body, organs (organization of groups) will rationally develop as Reality dictates.

The problem that the world is having is that a single person cannot simulate a cell in a body as the ancient wisdoms have always professed. They need to be a part of a small group. The similarities in the way those groups function (their Constitution) is what allows them to work in harmony even though each is taking care of its own concerns. The body thrives because each element (cell) is attending to its needs, which includes learning.

As time passes they will become more alike. Ofcourse geographic areas are a big determinant but homogeniety will be seeked.

In the current democratic system it is rational to vote and yet the percentage of people voting decreases every election, few exception. Even if it where rationale why would everyone or alot for that instance take part in a far more complicated and ardous debating process. Otherwise you would be saying that for your system people hae to change mentalities which is somewhat naive. ( a great deal of conditioning is needed.)

Your system is based on rationality, logical process towards a chosen goal. Now why should one logically take care of a person who is has a genetic condition that makes him constantly ill, is not him a drain of resources? Moreover his condition is likely to make him very unproductive. Logically there is no argument for taking care of these people other than, it is not humain, but where do emotions fit in rationality? Is not this debating process geared towards erradicating passion politics? What thing other than passion keeps us from helping the people that cannot help themselves?

Your system either:

*Allows for any desicion to take place.
*Only allows people to arrive at logical desicions. (not emotional, at least not concerning individual emotions.)

That makes 30 people per group, do you imagine a city such as New York assemble as to have little separate groups of 30 people, each with their own rules. How can that be realistic when the average is of more that 4000 people living in each kilometre square? Groups simply out of necessity are more realisticaly going to be composed of about 3000 to 4000 people. And that is a low estimate. Very low actually.

They will become more alike in some regards. They will lose the desire to attack each other for example. Is that a problem?

And in current systems they are not governed by rational decision making. You have merely proven my point.

Not as much as you seem to think, but are you suggesting that we make things better without altering what or how anyone thinks?

Are you suggesting that anyone who helps anyone else is being irrational? Very Nietzschian of you. As it turns out, passion in regards to compassion is very rational. The primary factor is that without compassion going untethered, cruelty for all increases. Utilitarianism is not a pleasant road to trek.

That is merely your naivity concerning logic and rationality as it relates to emotions. All emotions are formed from a logical bases. Rationality merely puts them in an order, a “rationed” release of desire. The direction of the desire, the goal, is another story and is not constrained by CRH other than the restriction to debate it openly.

I don’t know what you are imagining as a “group”. How many families are in New York? A family is already almost the exact same thing, as are small businesses. The family was nature’s way of doing the CRH. I am merely bring it up to date.

Not really but as i previously pointed out:

Why remain two different groups if they are increasingly the same in constitution? In the end these groups will tend to join and gather together therefore reducing greatly the number of republics, wherether it is bad or good depends on the interpreation of the individual.

Even if yours was you would have to make rationality the new religion which is done with alot of conditioning. Also the debating process is far more complicated than mere voting and a great deal of verification should be needed for any new proposal, are you saying that realistically at least 30 % of the population is going to take part in such a role? Nope, degrees will be formed and specialized people will be taught and they wil deal with this debates the general population will remain ignorant of these process. ( It is far more efficient, familiarazation principle, people will seek efficiency, given the current duties of people). Also even if you teach people at school about the system it is no guarantee that they will take an active role in it. (As seens now) How do you propose to make people active in this debate process?

No but if your system is based on rationality, it means that people must first, for the sake of the system be rationale thinkers since this is not the case right now. People will resist change, how do you think people will change to a new system without a failure of the prior one?

Rationality: logical process towards a chosen goal.

Goal, increase efficiency (save money) on health care systems to be able to spend more on other desired things.

Aimed at: increasing the well being of the general population.

Premise;

1. people with chronic diseases (on average) are far more expensive to take care of than the general population.

2. People with chronic diseases are far more unproductive ( on average) than the general population.

3. Population is increasing exponentially

4. resources are diminishing as they have to be wider spread.

Now is the goal not, increase the well being of the general population? Should not thus, individual concerns sacrifice themselves for the greater good? Where does individuality fit this logical process? Is this desicion not rational? ok, according to you it is rationale to feel compassion but if you do not detail exactly what rationale means is not your system doomed to be misintrepeted? It would not then yield the response that you are expecting. (you might know exactly what rationale means but others do not.)

It your system so I wont argue on you that compassion is rationale but you must detail EXACTLY what you mean otherwise the above problem arises. Rememeber if your constitution is established your draft will be likely seen as religion, if carried out as you expect/want it to.

Yeah I did not express well there. Rationality has to have a goal, every goal is geared towards the “greater good,” overall concern of the group, if desicions are made to please individual concerns how is that any different to the “socialist” states that are present now. (socialist by your definition.) The few ruling the many.

Umm… perhaps you might want to explain throughly what a group, is because a familiy is not the same as, a self ruling, autonomous state which has it own institutions and so on.

As a starting point-

• What are the exact functions of the groups?

The larger a group gets, the more difficult it becomes to truly be able to represent every individual. It is required by CRH that every individual be properly represented. If one group spans over too large of an area or too much diversity of people, they cannot have the same rules for everyone. That is the point to democracy.

Not any more than the US Constitution is “the new religion”. It was a new idea too and people learned it and changed to it. That endeavor did get accomplished by a large degree of propaganda, but again, that was the method at the time (and still is).

How much they partake is up to them to decide. When they find that they are being pushed into things that they don’t like, but have never given objection to, they will do something about it. They will get engaged in the process. the same is true of evey democratic state except as it is, to get engaged means to go collect thousands of votes and lobby Congress. With the CRH, they merely need to go to the Representative office and tell their story. If their story is more rational, they have just changed the law, in merely a day, not requiring money or propaganda campaigns or waiting for the House Chair to allow a vote on the issue (could be years, if ever).

Granted people do not change until they see need to change. But I propose that what people are feeling right now isn’t pleasant and all they need to see is the prospect of something they can personally do to make it better for themselves. There is no need to alter the entire nation at once, but merely to form your own honest group. I am not aware of any country that doesn’t allow that.

No it isn’t. The goal is to increase the well being of EVERY member. It is not a communist manifesto.

Oh it isn’t?? You might want to think that through a little more.

Did you read the Constitution? If so, read it again;

And then additional Amendments are added to tailor the specific goals of the group to their needs by their own choices.

So the size of the groups is up to the people in the system? You say yes. (prior discussion.) My only point was that groups would be bigger than what you expect. 30-70.

Im not saying it is bad simply that you should make rationality even as clear as possible.

But what if helping a member decreases the well being of the others? Are these desicions ignored, how would they be resolved? It is obvious now to me why you think that groups are going to be very small but, even in small groups such as a family, individual struggles will take place as each person tries to impose his will on others.

Note* it is your constitution, if you cannot take my at least, somewhat, rationale criticism how are you going to deal with everyone else? If you think the contradictions in this phorum is bad I advice you not to being dare to publish your constitution. Or is this sarcasm?

I will get back to you on that.

The conflict between “the few verses the many” is as old as dirt, but it has a rational solution. The most important part of that solution is to not make the many, very many. But beyond that is to not make any presumed decision until there is investigation as to how much suffering must be endured to resolve any proposal for the individual or the group.

If everyone can chip in a dime and save some members life, obviously that leads toward more rational behavior for the members as a whole. But if the entire group must endure torture just so one individual can be King for a day, then it isn’t rational. The highest objective dispermits the killing of anyone for sake of the comfort of others. The equation for the whole thing is based on the “area beneath the curve” (the “integral sum”) of the joy for each individual as well as any group and in fact, the entire world. That equation objective demands the strategies for extended life as well as maximized harmony.

What the hell are you imagining?
You stated that a family is not an organized group…

Families are organized groups, however, is not it asking too much of the poluation that is already having difficulties to handle their jobs to take care of such a complicated thing as running their own individual goverment?

the functions of the groups as I understood:

All governing authority shall be vested in the following four fundamental offices; Representative, Senate, Executive, and Judicial.

No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
It is the obligation of the union to prepare every member for reestablishing this authority in the event of its demise such as to include;
a. Teaching the rationale of this constitution and methods concerning its establishment
b. Providing all materials and tools required to re-initiate the authority of this constitution and its implementation.
c. Training all members in concerns of anti-cancer, anti-terrorism, decisiveness, faith, optimal isolation

The “Senate” office is to be responsible for receiving and evaluating all action proposals regarding any and all union members and establishing action priorities.

Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of the maximum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
Any delays in processing must provide rationale for the delay. Any rationale for delay must conform to the same rules as any other proposal in being documented and open for public review.
A final execution plan is to be formed from all current rationale which is then to be documented and presented to the Executive office for execution.

All this to people only 30-70 people?

Essencially,
the most harmonious group: made by one person. The group which is the least capable of gathering resources: made by one person.

There is pressure for the groups to be smaller due to harmony, (Notice you are the first goverment type that seeks this.)

There is pressure for the groups to get bigger due to specialization, (increasing efficiency.)

Step 1: Feetball.
Step 2: Repeat Step 1.
Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 and 2.

[edit]
Had to pull back my three points. Just practice your inner smile!

It is a lot easier than it looks. Riding a bicycle would seem very difficult if you had never seen it done.

Depending on the specialization, that is pressure to form different groups, not bigger. Or did you mean bigger than the 1?

And by the way, IBM spent a hell of a lot of money proving (to their own dismay) that distributed intelligence is MUCH better than centralized intelligence. That is why they created “Baby Blue” and the PC.

Why do you think the world needs to be “solved”?

Why do your human problems with it constitute some universal right to “heal” the world when it is the way the world is which makes you possible?
Does the world need to change or do you need to change in referenced to it/

The mistake has been made to associate human meddling with nature.
If there is one thing to be confronted is how human intervention, attempting to “heal” the world, has directed mankind towards a worse fate than anything nature could condemn us to.

Basic fact:

If you wish to change soemthing you are expressing a dissatisfaction with it, and so this is your reaction to it - a reaction based no vulnerability and weakness.
Your vulnerability and weakness in reference to the world is no justification to impose your rules and moralities upon it.
The only thing to be opposed is how human interventions, form a position of weakness and vulnerability, have often resulted in the deterioration of the human spirit, through the denial of human nature - and nature altogether - and the promotion of often demeaning, slavish, behavior and thinking so as to achieve a desirable goal: that of utopia in reference to vulnerability and weakness.

Most of our present ideal worlds are viewed through the prism of frailty and feebleness. We associate with the victim, because we feel weak and small and vulnerable in relation to nature; we then posit nature as the evil, and human artifices as the good.
Of course human artifices abound, creating various versions of Utopia, but our shares sense of weakness makes them similar.

Well, I guess that whether the groups are going to be bigger or not is not really a problem so it is redundant to talk about it.

Don’t forget the inherent structure of groups forming that do little more than coordinate other groups. A hierarchy forms naturally, but a very different type than what politics causes.

Thank you for bringing out this problem, hierachy stems naturally due to diverging abilities, should not classes emerge would not then a clash be inevitable between them? As higher classes try to impose their will on others?

As higher classed groups become more powerful, they will use their ways to control other groups, how do you prevent that?