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;
-
people with chronic diseases (on average) are far more expensive to take care of than the general population.
-
People with chronic diseases are far more unproductive ( on average) than the general population.
-
Population is increasing exponentially
-
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?