Constitutional Rational Harmony - Restoring Sanity

For small gatherings;

Preamble
We who gather in this union ordain and establish these Articles of Rational Harmony for the purpose of firming the rational pursuit of maximum influence toward eternal united harmony.

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

1. No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
2. 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

2) Member Representation
The “Representative” office is to be responsible for the observation and documentation of the current situation of the union.

1. Any union member shall be allowed to propose, through the Representative office, recommendations and suggestions concerning any union action as long as such items are accompanied by documented reasoning to support the proposal's need for consideration.
2. Any member must be allowed to debate the superiority of any existing or proposed rationale before the Senate and Judicial offices to the extent of rationale concern and by the Rational Debating processes..
3. If any existing rationale is found to be inferior to a proposed rationale as verified by the Judicial office, the existing rationale must be replaced by the proposed.

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

1. Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
2. These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
3. Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of clarity of hope and threat concerning optimum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
4. All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
5. All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning utilizing definitional logic. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
6. 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.
7. 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.

4) Execution of Authority
The “Executive” office is to be responsible for accurately implementing any and all execution plans received from the Senate. As such this office is in charge of all policing and manual efforts.


5) Verification of Governing Rationale
The “Judicial” office is to be responsible for verifying that all duties are being carried out as per Constitutional rationale and for arbitration of irresolvable dispute.

1. All judicial actions are to be documented and remain open for membership rational counter-debate.

6) Qualification for Station (Purity Issue)
All office holders and members are to be qualified only by their ability to perform the associated duties of their position as determined by Judicially verified Senate rationale.

1. The determination of ability to perform shall be made by Judicially verified Senate rationale and shall remain documented for rational membership review and update.

7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.


==============================================================

Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be forced to do what YOU believe to be Irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

Imagine a nation operating entirely via small groupings wherein each group functions by its own constitutional law. One might be tempted to think that such would undoubtedly end in total competitive chaos, but it doesn’t.

If each group is cast with a constitution that innately causes the group as a whole to learn through time and by experience, every grouping and person begins to become rational, “sane”. And rationality demands mutual empathy.

Within each grouping, their individual constitution must merely maintain a truly intelligent rational process for the group to use in forming their own laws and with which to attend to their own needs and self-harmony. US corporations have a similar construct except for one critical variation - documented rationale.

The common constitution structure that must be maintained is one wherein all decision-making is done by;

A) documenting the rationale of every decision/law and

B) ensuring that any freely proposed “better rationale” immediately replaces any older rationale and resultant decisions and laws.

C) determining what is more rational by logical-form-moderated Rational Debating.

By such a constraint, reasoning becomes more in focus and is given more authority than political competition. In fact, passion politics (exaggerated hopes and threats, terrorism and false prophets) becomes futilized.

The primary problem that all nations have always had is their innate attempt to control beyond their grasp and make decisions for all people when they never have the situation wherein all people share the exact same need. People end up suffering needlessly because a government is always trying to make one law for all people (often millions) even when most people do not need such a law.

A localized constitution relieves the need for a higher governance to manufacture global/universal laws that are always inappropriate and burdensome for more people than not. Localization is the very make of democracy. As long as the higher governance merely ensures that the lower groupings are following a rational learning process, the burden in their living becomes as reduced as physically possible while the hopes become as great as possible. A constitution structured to ensure that rational thinking has authority over political persuasion takes care of that problem.

Openly documenting the authorizing rationale behind every decision while allowing any member to propose better reasoning through a Rational Debating process, ensures that learning and rationale rise.

In addition to inspiring more rational thinking, this governing method also gives greater voice to the brightest ideas presented rather than merely to the current most persuasive person.

Each local grouping appends their own amendments so as to tailor their constitution to their own needs. Each creates their own life style as a group. Each group is a living organism in itself.



==============================================================

Appended Discussion

JSS;

This Constitution is actually an evolutionary advance from the US Constitution. As any embryo gets more sophisticated, it requires more motherly care as it develops, but yields a far more advance evolutionary maturity. It is being currently proposed in an environment that is in many ways more harsh than that of its ancestor, but in a few ways less so. In old England, I would have been arrested for merely discussing it and shipped off to Australia. In America, discussing it isn't illegal, merely a little dangerous due to current hidden management methods.

Although stated fairly simply, the actual interactions that cause it to work are far more complex. Realize first that all, even the smallest decisions are being seen by all members at all times and always open for scrutiny. Every decision must stand up to counter rationale. It would be very difficult to maintain hidden agendas. Beyond the very beginning initial group, even Satan would have a hard time obscuring evil intent.

Anonymous said...

Can't this system be overwritten simply by a Human flaw of greed and lust for power? That will always occur. The Romans had such an encounter, their republican system was brilliant, the mindset of the people completely different from what we have now. Yet still people like Caesar and Sulla managed to overrule with dictatorships given to them by their greed and also the fact the the Senate had to grant them executive powers because the people had more favour with the soon to be Dictator than the Senate?
April 19, 2011 11:34 AM

Of course the greed for power is the entire issue when it comes to potential corruption. Several concerns come into play when considering what would happen "if one, some, or all were to get greedy".

As the CRH is currently written, each office is counter checked by each other. All activities are documented and held to exactly what they state to be their reasoning. If any law were to be formed merely to serve greed, it would easily be seen and defeated long before it had a chance to become significant. Even when the USA lost its independence via acceptance of the FED, it took a very long time to actually take over. And even to this day, they must take care to not go too far, too quickly. Forced and repeated rational justifying of the FED would have negated it long ago as better plans came to light.

A single agency can't obtain sufficient power to ever get control even if progress gets made. Any errors in rationality are being constantly reviewed and corrected without need of alarms.

Of course, in an extreme situation, all members could be forced or simply payed to betray their constitution, but that would become rather expensive for the conqueror and what would really be the gain? There was already a group that would "listen to reason" and were already forced to do so, thus any counter force is demanding them to do something irrational for pay. But if they are all going to be paid that much, was it really irrational to accept it? Won;t that be an interesting DEBATE to WATCH take place, because you can bet they will debate it rationally before they act and all they debate can be observed.

================================================================

From ILovePhilosophy: "Master of the world"

Archangel wrote:Let's say that an asteroid hits the Earth, wipes out 90% of the human race, or an all-out nuclear war leaves the world in disorder - in the reigning chaos, however, things happen that eventually put YOU in charge of EVERYTHING, and you become the sole ruler of the world... Now you have a chance to create your own social order, to mould the world as you think it SHOULD be... What would be your version of a perfect world? How would you make it perfect?

What LT has named "Mutualism" (a balance of mutual concerns for all parties). In order to establish that mutual agreement, the actual base needs of life must be addressed as well as the issues of joy/happiness/pleasure.

I think it can be all addressed best under a Constitution that is a little like that of the original USA (but without the loopholes). To understand exactly why it must fit a particular form requires an understanding of the true needs and joys of life. Unfortunately, that seems to be the hold up preventing people from already doing it. After those needs are studied, a hard-line substructure allows for the fruitful and joy promoting amendments to be added.

The end result, by my study was a government that is almost non-existent. Instead small groups of 10-75 people formed their own constitutional organization. Every small group has the same substructure, but all amendments are determined independently by each group. This allows for extreme diversity in life styles with each group taking care of its own needs as it sees fit. An extreme liberal group can exist right beside an extreme conservative group without conflict. The substructure of constitution is enforced by a group that does nothing but enforce constitutional agreement and has no other authority (the anti-cancer monitor). This constitutional, anti-cancer method can be enforced by other interesting means, void of military interventions.

The end global structure is that of a "democratic aggregate of micro-republics" - very small republics.

It is critically important that the substructure (the fundamental constitution) be exactly right, else the tiniest flaw (as with all governments) will allow for corruption (the cancer). My effort at such a constitution is posted; Constitution of Rational Harmony. The strategy behind it is a very long story. It has been installed in a small group in Oregon a few years ago, but they were only 6 weeks from disbanding due to funding, so it never really got started.

The strategy that we call "Life" is the fundamental issue. Each life is a constitution and in my version of governing, each constitution is a life. They each are designed to automatically learn and develop under their own rule and at their own pace. I believe the strategy involved, much like that of life itself, is the strongest possible against disharmony, distrust, and corruption from outsiders, insiders, or from natural disaster. I don't think you can get any better in form than life itself.

The process of life that requests such a constitution is;

Clarify, Verify, and Remember the Hopes and Threats that inspire the Maximum Momentum of Eternal Joy.

To accomplish that with a group requires many commonly understood efforts tied together in ways very similar to the human body as well as the original US Constitution (but much smaller and many more of them). Political Science nor Religion could ever challenge the design with anything better.
=============================================================

victorel21 wrote:What would prevent this small states to join together and form bigger states and the disband?

The key to all of it (and life) is that they each must have exposed reasoning for all they choose to do. That means that if they chose to do it, they had a reason that they not only have documented, but it is up for debate at all times. So if there is some valid reasoning as to why they should NOT do whatever and that reasoning can be shown to be truly more rational (which can be done in most cases due to the Rational Debating process), the alternate motion passes.

The point is that no matter what "they" choose, they merely have to have legitimate rationale for choosing it. Every choice is about rationality. And if they do, then there must be a good reason for doing it.

victorel21 wrote:Why would anyone pay taxes to substantiate anothers persons lifestyle that they do not agree with, conservatives and communist?

Is there a valid reason as to why they should? Just introduce whatever the reason, and it either stands up to rational criticism or it doesn't. Again, the key is Rational Debating (wherein logic is supervised for form, not truth value). If high level taxation stands up to reason, then everyone has reason to stand up for it. If it doesn't then no one has reason to do it. If you want everyone to do your idea of good, then you had better have a damn good foundation for your case.

An even better concern is that even if all of the wrong choices are made, like a seed up righting itself, through time each group learns through its documenting and updating through reasoning. When documented (remembered) reasoning builds upon itself.

victorel21 wrote:I believe you have dealt with this by saying that we should mold peoples behaviour to be more rational, is this possible? If so why and how or are you just being hypothtical?

This "molding" happens automatically, without effort. Even right now as you discuss with me, you are learning toward being more rational than you were already. The mere obligation to use rational or logical argument to defend an issue, causes the person to learn how to do it better and be more beholding to it. People become more intelligent merely by being involved.

victorel21 wrote:You must be aware that often pleasure is based on trivial things, material possesion or substances that trigger a desired response, (drugs, food, ect.) Since resources are depleting this would mean that at some point basing the goverment on these things is going to inevitably lead to a struggle of resources.

The question is about how any such struggles are to be handled. Are they to be by conflict, hidden agendas, and deceptions, or are they to be about rational, open, honest thought?

victorel21 wrote:Also on the same note if you maintain capitalism as a economic model, you are going to experience the same booms and busts that the curent system is, since every decision would be made to maximize profits, (pleasure).

The current economic problems are entirely due to hidden efforts to use people against their will and having to maintain false incentives.

But regardless of what happens, again, the question is merely are you more in favor of hidden, deceptive politicking, or open rational debate (not political debate)?

victorel21 wrote:In the busts the republics will inevitably detached from the central goverment, and refuse to pay taxes among other things to other states that do not follow their system. This would be done rather easily since their is no concrete idea of goverment.

Is there better reason to do it that way or a different way? Whichever way has the more rational argument behind it... has the more rational argument behind it. Why would you want to do the less rational thing?

victorel21 wrote:Having said this it is very good idea of goverment and would certainly last longer than demosophy but in crises small republics will be predisposed to leave the central goverment for all of them will accuse other republics lifestyles for their demise.

Accusations become pointless unless they can be rationally substantiated and lead to a more rational change. It is hard to not think in the old political ways, but remember everything is dependent on coming up with actual rationale for doing it. And if it really has better rationale than any other idea proposed, why wouldn't you be doing it? The alternative is always that you do what is less rational - more foolish.

But in addition, just imagine that you, right now, have some 20 people with whom to collaborate for all of your needs and theirs. You and they are restricted to logically/rationally supporting any decision made for the group. The ideas of what to do can be anything from anywhere. They merely must prove themselves before rational criticism against an incumbent idea. Do you honestly think that you are better off on your own amongst a nation of millions where things are controlled by passion politics and secretive agendas that you cannot even track and might or might not be to your favor?

The Constitution of Rational Harmony allows everyone to have substantial family/community support and the opportunity to switch families if you simply cannot see eye to eye with their reasoning. And every child can see exactly what the reasoning was for everything its parents and grandparents did (and are doing).

The alternatives are to continue to be merely a human asset for other people's effort to be wealthy and powerful at your expense in hopes that they have more use for you than your replacement.
===============================================================

allanquartz wrote:

James S Saint wrote:
But regardless of what happens, again, the question is merely are you more in favor of hidden, deceptive politicking, or open rational debate (not political debate)?

Of course, everyone on this forum is in favour of rational debate but I doubt the majority of people are. And this is one of the problems philosophers since Socrates face when trying to devise a system for organising human society, they always refer back to the rational mind of humans as though it is a given. But lets face, it humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thought, not the other way around. The rational thing for a philosopher to do would be to devise a system that best uses the irrationality of humans to come to a rational outcome. Or devise a system that only allows rational thought.

Excellent point.

The beauty of each Constitution (CRH) is that it applies only to the few members of each group and doesn't apply at all to those without a group. If you and perhaps the other members of this forum were to band together so as to support all of your lives through such a rational decision making process, how much would you really care about what other people use to make their decisions? I'm certain there is a need to care to some degree, but the CRH allows for other people (the "irrational") to do as they choose to do while any small group chooses to do better for itself. Is there a need for the rational people to suffer under the constraints imposed by the irrational?

The CRH does not presume the ancient and ever lasting sin of forcing the masses to conform to what the elite believe to be wiser. The elite might very well be correct in what they think, but forcing people or tricking them against their will merely propagates the ignorance and in the long run creates disharmony, misery, dissension, and war. The CRH does not assume that tricking the irrational people into compliance is wise, but nor does it forbid it. The CRH merely requires that if such a notion is to be accepted, it must stand to rational debate and prove itself as not only a good idea, but the best idea available. And it must constantly maintain that position throughout its reign despite the vast updating of ideas and evolution of situations.

Every good idea must maintain its goodness or be immediately replaced with the better. I am certain that at times, the older good idea would return as the new good idea as situations changed. That is what being conscious is all about - being alert and changing to suit the situation.

If you had a small group of rational friends all dedicated to serving the group through such a rational process, even if nothing else was different in the world, would you be better off than you are now? It only takes one such small group.

You see, if even a single group demonstrates that group rationality and the CRH work to cause the harmony of its members as well as propel the entire group into stronger and more promising life, don't you think those watching might get the hint even if they are still a little irrational themselves? It isn't really a question of homosapians being innately irrational. It is a question of "monkey see, monkey do".

===============================================================

finishedman wrote:Being rational is relative to what people want. When you want something that’s when you think and rationalize getting what you want. Then you can define being irrational in opposition to that.

That is the immature perspective.

When a child makes excuses to get what he wants (not really knowing why he really wants it), it is called "rationalizing". That word really means merely making up some seemingly rational story to justify your passions.

Rationality refers to actually having logically indisputable reasons for your actions. It requires that you have a chosen (and documented in this case) goal and debate-proof steps to get to that goal. "Making excuses" won't cut it.

finishedman wrote:When one forgoes his personal wants for the need to maintain an overall concept of rationality among all, he’s trying to be un-rational at best, neither thinking this way nor that.

The need to comply to the vast many is what is being removed by the CRH. If you personally don't see the rationale of the small group of which you are a member, you are free to go find another more to your liking or even go start your own. It is much like changing jobs when you no longer feel hope in what you are doing. With the CRH, you are free to go start your own business.
==============================================================

Archangel wrote:@JSS... Your system, governed by the Constitution of Rational Harmony, as i undertand it, assumes humans as ideal Vulcans.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But it really doesn't. You see it doesn't really matter if the people cannot think rationally when they begin the effort. It is only required that they try enough to utilize the system, the CRH. As they attempt to justify their passions, they discover the reasoning behind their own passions. They begin to discover that there really is good rationale for many of the things that they thought were merely hidden desires. ALL passion, all ideas, all "angels" are brought into the light and seen for what they are. Most are far more deserving than they are given credit. But when some passion is seen as not rational, it can only be due to something else being seen as more rational and having proven itself to be so. If it cannot be seen as the best idea available, it cannot be allowed to reign.

Even an animal stops wanting for something when it realizes that something is harming it more than helping it. The CRH helps to bring into the light what is actually helping or harming at a pace that the members can see. It creates a harmony at the very root between the cognitive and the subconscious, the mind and the heart.

Archangel wrote:If the acceptance of that system is voluntary, how would you explain (or convince) people to accept it?

By no more than demonstration and answering questions when asked. Compliance of others and proselytizing is NOT required. Do your internal organs change their ways because other people want your body to function differently or because other people choose to function differently (I imagine you would hope not)?

Archangel wrote:When i try to visualize someone explaining the masses how it's the best system and how it's for their own good, i can see them nodding their heads in approval and agreeing - as soon as the explainer leaves, they get an amnesia and go about their bussiness in the old way, as if nothing happened... We must not forget that most people do first, explain later. If human beings valued rationality as much as it's claimed - that "rational harmony" you're talking about would have been achieved long time ago.

Oh I agree completely. Now what would you imagine takes place when the "explainer" is explaining how it is that this small group is not only healthier and happier, but is also much more wealthy? Do you really think that wealth is gained by being Irrational?

And more importantly, how critical is it that other people do as you do? If I were the explainer, it is only out of compassion that I would explain at all. Why should I care how silly other people choose to be? In general, it would probably make it all the easier to become wealthier for me. I understand the Kabolic ways of using the ignorance and foolishness of others. I just prefer to go a better direction.
===============================================================

finishedman wrote:Okay … so what do you do when your growing child shows a penchant for something not in accordance with your group’s shared beliefs and practices? Dump him off in another group that aligns with the child’s natural endowment, or force it to seek your approval?

With the latter the child is reared learning the need to be approved. Needing approval is tantamount to saying, “Your view of me is more important than my own opinion of myself.” … and where is the harmony in a neurotic adolescent?

You see, the child has no freedom due to the fact that he cannot take care of himself. And don’t you think it would be highly irrational for parents to give up their child to another group? So from the start a child is encased in what is imposed by the parents group.

You should make that bolded part a part of your signature. The use of "fear of disapproval" is oppressive, malignant, and intentional. Embarrassment and reputation are what allows the few to exercise mass influence over the many. But it doesn't merely oppress people into compliance. It also distracts the mind from learning, attending, remembering, and thinking. A person too scared of being rejected cannot allow himself to accept a truth statement that he feels might not be approved by his peers or ethos authority. It is an ancient and predominant means to control both behavior AND thought. It causes anxiety, insecurity, rebellion, and depression. It is the act of a true terrorism governance ("People should never have to fear their government..").

Parental authority, another good issue...

The first question to ALWAYS answer to yourself on any issue;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of child rearing, are you a member of a small group that proposes to let any child of the age of 6 do as they please? age 12? age 18? age 31? OR perhaps (my preferred) after passing a maturity test (AFTER people have learned how to test for such things - could be a while in itself)?

The point isn't which was is THE right way for ALL people. The point is merely of which group do you prefer to be a member realizing that you have direct input as to what the laws are to be. Your "vote" in a sense, is merely 1 out of 20 rather than 1 out of 100 million (or more).

Don't you think that the time for a child to be free from parental rule should be determined by the child's individual need for such? I would think that different group education rules would play a role in such matters as well.

Realize also, that at any age, anyone can introduce any idea to challenge the incumbent ideas. The ideas are not restricted as to where they originate. Thus if a child at the age of 12 years happens to have a brilliant notion (or merely believes that he does), he is welcome to present it (with or without a sponsor helping with his presentation). Such an environment causes automatic learning by the children of exactly why the group is doing what they are doing. The reasoning behind every rule is not merely constantly exposed, but constantly being examined by the most imaginative members for possible improvement. No one has to go out and collect 100,000 votes in a campaign just to attempt to overthrow the House majority leader's prejudiced rulings.

With the CRH, when mistakes are discovered in any method of governing, almost instant changes are forced as soon as it was discovered as a mistake. Nothing can be assessed as a mistake unless something different has been discovered as better. Literally over night, the group can adjust to the wiser method. Within a week, an entire nation might see that same light and be changed. And it all might be by the voice of a 12 year old girl who just happened to see a valid point that no one else had considered.

The BEST ideas rule, NOT the most famous, oldest, or most privileged. "Not invented here" doesn't apply.
==============================================================

finishedman wrote:

JSS wrote:are you a member of a small group that proposes to let any child of the age of 6 do as they please?

Sure why not? They’re not much concerned with why they should conform to anything. They have no thoughts about a better state of affairs to coexist with other kids in. They are completely at terms with life as it is. The world exactly as it is is their world, no desire to change it or themselves and they freely express themselves in it. Not a bad way to live, huh? We could learn a lot from them.

If your group has determined that to be what seems most rational to them and you, who would I be to prevent you from doing it? Your children are NOT my property.

In reality, I imagine that in short order, your group would see more reasoning on the matter, but the point is that YOU get to see the reasoning and YOU get to engage in counter reasoning proposals. It is not reasoning that is forced upon you by outsiders (at times literally on the opposite side of the world). Go try to change the legal age of adulthood - good luck.

The G20 (currently controlling all money throughout the West) must control all things that affect their money.. that includes what children are to think and believe. That is what you are living under currently. But who are the G20? By what priority do they set their standard for child rearing? If you came up with a better idea, could you even get the idea into their hands at all, much less convince them that it was better?

If any one group attempts what you suggest, all groups eventually get to see what happened and thus can then choose for themselves.

The IDEAS compete, not the ARMAMENTS.
===============================================================

victorel21 wrote:Ideas are basically thought processes that achieve what a person wants. in this case: mazimizing pleasure in each group.

Ideas don't necessarily accomplish anything and are often what defeats what a person wants. Ideas are a bit like tools or technology, they serve whoever uses them to the degree and end to which they are used.

victorel21 wrote:Since you have said that a person votes 1 of 20 people (a small group) this means that the groups decision only applies to the people inside the group. Since rationale is that which is more effective to get what you want what is to stop any group concluding that they should kill (war against) other groups as an easy way to get resorces. Will other groups attack back? What if other groups saw killing the prior group the most effective way to mazimize pleasure.

Again, the first thing to ask yourself concerning any issue...
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of thoughts of war. Do you want to be conscripted into a war that someone far away chose to make into war without even knowing why or what you are really fighting about (Vietnam)?

If your group has chosen to go to war, they have to have published their reason for doing so and any opposing ideas have been rationally defeated. Thus the suggestion is that they really should be going to war since no one can come up with a reason NOT to.

But in addition, by the thought that others might instigate war with or without reason, it makes sense that other groups would take rational measures to defend themselves in the most rational way. Why would you want them to do anything else? Currently in the US, the government has altered to make it illegal for citizens to defend themselves in any respect at all. That has happened because THEY worked out rationale that suited THEM, but you didn't. They now keep you irrational, confused, misinformed - weak and subjugated.

The CRH merely introduces a mechanism that enforces rational thought (and thus behavior) for ALL people without presuming what it is that is rational for all people. It allows for them to figure that out for themselves while remaining a team and a community/family.

The mechanism simulates the living, thinking process, but as a group, a living entity made of living people (rather than the machines being designed to replace you).

victorel21 wrote:Since the objective is to maximize personal pleasure in any group, it means that the ideas will be geared towards that.

Don't leave out the issue of survival so that such "pleasure" (I prefer "joy") can be obtained. The real measurable target is the maximum integral sum under the curve of measured joy. Without measurement, progress gets very difficult. The Science of Joy is crucial in designing a heavenly environment.

victorel21 wrote:...Not only would ideas compete but so would the individual pleasure of each group as well. If there are no constraints in this then this could lead to war as war could be seen as the most rationale, most effective way, to get what you want.

By who's rationale is that?? Certainly not mine. If your group chooses to war with mine for "fun", you can pretty much bet I am going to ensure that it is going to be far from fun for your group.

Not only that, but all I really have to do is introduce a contrary idea concerning more joy through peace (easy enough to do) and your group is obliged to debate the validity and conform to the better rationale. War is almost never the truly better idea. War comes about due to Socialism - the effort to control more than your share of life.

victorel21 wrote:This you then say not be rationale but rationalizing:

JSS wrote:finishedman wrote:
"Being rational is relative to what people want. When you want something that’s when you think and rationalize getting what you want. Then you can define being irrational in opposition to that. "

That is the immature perspective.

When a child makes excuses to get what he wants (not really knowing why he really wants it), it is called "rationalizing". That word really means merely making up some seemingly rational story to justify your passions.

Rationality refers to actually having logically indisputable reasons for your actions. It requires that you have a chosen (and documented in this case) goal and debate proof steps to get to that goal.

Politics is about getting what you want and the system is geared towards that objective.

Currently, that is what you are living under - political decision making based on passion voting and deceptive manipulating of the masses for the benefit of aristocratic overlords.

victorel21 wrote:Who has a logically indisputable reason for their actions? What is absolutely and perfectly good? What is indisputable goodness? It will all depends on the person which is asked since the system is geared towards maximizing pleasure.

Perhaps you misunderstand something;

Rationale refers to the logical steps laid out to achieve a chosen goal. The goal itself is not subject to logic unless it is some former rational sub-goal. Example;

What are we to eat for dinner tonight, pizza?
I don't like pizza, what else do we have?
Well, we can have hamburgers instead
Okay, I like hamburgers
Okay, done, hamburgers it is.

Now, believe or not, that was a rational process, not because hamburgers are better for you or superior in any way other than the revealed fact that they were preferred over pizza by the only people involved. Would your group be deciding every meal for every one? I would hope not. Thus what is rational is up to those involved and INCLUDES their passions/desires. The logical part of the process was merely the discovery of what was available and the short discussion of who preferred which. Both were willing to have hamburgers, THEREFORE hamburgers it is.

Someone could foil the simplicity of those two by introducing the more complex issue of health or physique. If those ideas are introduced, then again, they include those thoughts into deciding which final choice to make consider ALL that they want, not merely which tastes better.

The smaller the group, the more diversity is available. The larger the group, the more founded the decisions but less tailored to individual needs. The needs of the one can easily outweigh the needs of a small group, but almost never the needs of a larger group.

victorel21 wrote:Also how rational any society is would depend on how well educated that society is, but is not education a sort of conditioning students are taught what they "need to know", who would determine this? How are you adressing this?

That issue is first constitutionally addressed by demanding that an understanding of the constitution itself is required (as noted in article (1)). But after that, it is up to the group to rationally decide how much of which education is most rational for their situation. Would it make sense to have farmers studying finance, medicine, physics, religion, basket weaving, scuba diving...? What suits people in one region is not what suits people in another. Let them decide which education is best for them as long as they maintain a learning mechanism so that they can discover and correct for any prior poor choices.

victorel21 wrote:This form of goverment is very similar to one I had in mine one which is self actualizing but the problem is that then there is no central form of goverment apart from the ideology that every person should be rational. However, what is a rationale want? The only one I can think of is gaining knowledge,(innate curiousity).

Rational desires are those that maintain the harmony between what you think and what you have urge to do. Creating wild urges is easy and serves your masters. But such urges must be divided from your rational thoughts if you are going to continue serving an interest that is not serving you. What serves you best (the MOST rational) is that which keeps you in harmony with yourself - mind and heart harmony. That which stays in harmony CANNOT perish.

victorel21 wrote:But why should a monkey do something if it does not get him what he wants?

The CRH ensures that the monkey doesn't even try until he decides that it IS what he wants. The idea being discussed at that time was why anyone would comply. I stated that you let them see a demo of how it works and If they like what they see (you being more wealthy than they) THEY will decide to do what works on their own - no force necessary.

The real-world issue is that people tend to want to USE other people's weaknesses in order to gain power for themselves. The CRH defeats selfishness at its core.

victorel21 wrote:"Desire is the source of all irrationality,"

Even more specifically, PRESUMPTION is the source of all error in desire.
==============================================================

allanquartz wrote:

James S Saint wrote:
The end result, by my study was a government that is almost non-existent. Instead small groups of 10-75 people formed their own constitutional organization. Every small group has the same substructure, but all amendments are determined independently by each group. This allows for extreme diversity in life styles with each group taking care of its own needs as it sees fit. An extreme liberal group can exist right beside an extreme conservative group without conflict. The substructure of constitution is enforced by a group that does nothing but enforce constitutional agreement and has no other authority (the anti-cancer monitor). This constitutional, anti-cancer method can be enforced by other interesting means, void of military interventions.

The end global structure is that of a "democratic aggregate of micro-republics" - very small republics.

Ok, this structure looks workable, "As long as the higher governance merely ensures that the lower groupings are following a rational learning process." But where are these groupings situated? Are each group segregated, with their own means of subsistence?

Preferably, but not necessarily. It always depends on what is most rational by their own openly viewable assessment. The same three concerns apply to every issue;

Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of how connected and dependent you are to your group, I would think that the more connected you are the better, but hey, who ever said I dictate rationality. Maybe it is wiser that some groups are very loosely connected. I know it is important than some members be a member of more than one group. This is what allows for absolute security against "social cancer" (people pretending to be what they aren't).

The inter-connectivity of groups has a sane scheme to it, "4-dimensional stitching". But that is not a requirement of the Constitution because the CRH concerns itself merely with the fundamental binding element. The inter-connectivity ends up, rationally, looking very similar, but such is not required to be designed before hand. Let Reality lead the way once you have a means for following it - CRH. The groups figure out on their own how to best communicate and cooperate and to what degree.

allanquartz wrote:If they are segregated, how are the consequences of one group which adversely affect another group controlled? For example, one group builds a dam that stops the flow of water, which is the only source of water for the group downstream? It would be rational to control a resource for the benefit of your own group.

Again;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of diminished resources...
Currently there are public parks. Why? Who made that decision? Wasn't it the result of proposing an action and having people debate the pros and cons until a decision was made? The park serves whom?

If a group of all males somehow decided that going around raping all of the females in the other groups was their most rational course of action, what do you imagine would be the first thing that would really happen once they tried? Many groups can cooperate as they see fit. But the point is that it is how THEY see fit, not how one small group over in a foreign land sees fit.

If ten groups recognize the danger coming from one group, what is to stop those ten from exercising against that one? Wouldn't that be RATIONAL?

Now if the ten for some reason could not protect themselves from the one, don't you think you would have been screwed anyway? Isn't that happening to the degree it can already? How are you any more protected under any other scheme? Currently any such decisions are made at best in the same way, but usually not even as well because some masters don't really care (the G20) and many prefer such conflicts as it allows for them to manipulate and extort from their human property/resource (fear is a great motivator for free human energy/money).

The point is that each group does merely what seems to make the most sense. They are merely being required to document and uphold their reasoning for doing so. Nothing is bared except insanity. Form 100 groups into an army if that seems to be the most rational thing to do. But disband it as soon as that seem more rational.
===============================================================
allanquartz wrote:

JSS wrote:

victorel21 wrote:...Not only would ideas compete but so would the individual pleasure of each group as well. If there are no constraints in this then this could lead to war as war could be seen as the most rationale, most effective way, to get what you want.

By who's rationale is that?? Certainly not mine. If your group chooses to war with mine for "fun", you can pretty much bet I am going to ensure that it is going to be far from fun for your group.

Not only that, but all I really have to do is introduce a contrary idea concerning more joy through peace (easy enough to do) and your group is obliged to debate the validity and conform to the better rationale. War is almost never the truly better idea. War comes about due to Socialism - the effort to control more than your share of life.

So would there be a mechanism for introducing a topic of debate into another group?

Well I think the easiest would start with something like, "Hey YOU over there, why don't you..."

Don't make it harder than it is. If no one in a group thinks that an outside idea is worth representing to the Senate, I suspect the idea isn't going to make it regardless. Unfortunately there might really be valid times or circumstances wherein outside voices really shouldn't be heard for a time (most rationally speaking). I would think that most of the time, by far, the idea of hearing outside voices would be seen as more rational from the get go. Hearing only one's own voice is a very hard case to defend. The group is a living entity. I suspect it has rational cause to be a social being, not a hermit.

Even when people form groups that only speak in private, they unknowingly delude themselves into false presumptions, misunderstandings, and condemnations. Being closed, is an insidious way to create insanity yet it IS what is controlling Man today. Do you ever get to see WHY the G20 or the Homeland Security makes their decisions? Yet those people control your lives. You can't give them valid feedback until you know their reasoning.

I think the issue is really one of having any idea being represented by a member. A group that allows outsiders to invade their parliament irresponsibly, is asking for trouble (much like never banning anyone regardless of them flooding your server). It would be like foreign nationals making your laws for you (oh yeah, that is the way it is now, huh  ).

I would prefer to leave that issue to the groups to discern the most rational way to handle it. If some group got too closed off and became a problem, I am sure the other groups could wake them up.
==============================================================

victorel21 wrote:

Very well by definition your system is perfect since nothing is constant and abides with the general rule of existence that everything changes.

Your system could last forever and never fail.

JSS wrote:The CRH defeats selfishness at its core.

Selfishness is an inhenrent constant on all humans, helping others stems from the need to cooperate to achieve certain goals, ultimately it is still due to an assumed personal benefit. Which leads me to this.

Your system will likely never fail, since it does not establish failure.
However, it does not prevent actions such as war to take place, instead it lets people by trial and error to find out for themselves what is more convinient to them. This trial and error process makes for an unnecessary waste of resources. For example, let us say a group fights another, a lot of people die, resources are tarnished, war is established as irrational and thus not rational.

The current generation will have a far more vivid notion of what war is but the next generations will have an ever dimished notion of what war is like since they are less affected. Over generations this "fear" of war will disappear and lead to another war.

Since the system fails to prevent events that happen it will at some point be replaced with something else.

General rule of motivation: the human being will always seek to order the disorder.

JSS wrote:PRESUMPTION is the source of all error in desire.

Seeing that you use presumption often, could you define presumption for future reference seeing that we are likely to engage in discusion quite often.

I can see that I need to address some common definition issues. There is a common misunderstanding about the concept of "selfish" and "selfless".

Selfish == being concerned solely with oneself
Selfless == having no concern for oneself

Those are two extremes. No being can be either extreme unless in a very protected environment (created by the other extreme).

The normal homosapian (or any creature for that matter) is primarily concerned with what it perceives as itself. But that endeavor in social creatures immediately requires that the needs of others be taken into consideration. The act of trading items for items is a sign of social consideration ("Mutualism") wherein a person gives in order to get. That is the natural state of homosapian.

If the homosapian was truly selfish by nature, he would very much resist the notion of giving anything at all even in order to get because that is what "selfish" means. In a threatened environment, most creatures will be more concerned about taking than giving due to the heightened threat. Due to being pushed to an extreme of survival, they cannot afford the risk of giving if there is any chance they can get without giving anything up. But that does NOT constitution selfishness. It merely points out what the higher priority is, not the sole priority.

Every creature should, in fact, have its highest priority its "self". But the problem is in identifying exactly what that is. In the process of identifying what your "self" actually is, you discover that it isn't merely within you, but is in many people. A small example would be your desire to be free. That desire is a part of what makes up your "self". But that desire is not merely within you, it is in very many people. When you attempt to preserve your "self", you must attempt to preserve the "desire to be free". And you preserve it by preserving what secures it. You preserve the ability to be free in abstract form and thus you preserve freedom for all, not merely yourself. That is what was meant by your soul (the abstract fundamental "you") surviving past your death. Such an act is nether selfISH nor selfLESS it is a proper self concern that happens to include any others with similar concern. It is empathy; "Mutualism".

Compassion is born out of wise self interest. 
Selfishness is born out of foolish self interest.


But now with that in mind realize that the groups are themselves each a living creature (and together form an even higher living creature => "Ahdam"; "Man"). They too must (in order to maintain rationality) have sympathy for other such groups because it must maintain the abstract ability to be what it is. That means that every group has an innate rational requirement to support any other group's right to obey their own CRH. That is identical to the democratic countries supporting the right (and ability) for other countries to be democratic (but not forcing them to be).

So merely by being obligated to be rational, there is no need to require further demand to be considerate of others. The consideration of others, Mutualism, is an innate part of being logically, rationally, self-interested (not self-ISH).

And;
Presumption == action based on assumption; action taken before verification of assessment.
===============================================================

victorel21 wrote:Fair enough but their is one thought I would like you to mull over. The groups as you establish are about 20 people, but this is unlikely to be the case. As people diversify and get ever more distinct jobs a doctor a dentist. This groups out of neccesity will have to grow in other to maximize the efficiency of their work. (It is more efficient, time wise, to grow crops in large portions thant to grow your own food, subsitence farming.) It is also more practical since it allows people to exercise other functions within society other than growing their own food.

Groups out of neccesity are likely to be far bigger than what you envision, they will probably look more like a small town, 10,000. It is even likely that big suburbs are created for the same reason. In this case you would inevitably have to deal with criminality, what would the group do then? Arent their any restrictions to what a group might do? For example, kill the criminals.

I think you have missed a critical point (easy to do considering how many there are). The sizing is not an arbitrary issue. It is in fact what has killed every republic throughout the history of Man - over extension of presumed authority.

As per the Constitution Article 7;
7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.

Although that limit is very loosely phrased, it is one of the most critical issues in the entire Constitution. Primitive man, back in the passion politics days (your era and before), failed to realize that authority is strictly an issue of situation. It is not who has the bigger gun, greater technology or covenant. It is always determined by the situation and nothing else. Your true situation is your true God.
>Do not grasp for what is not within your reach.

When a part of your body loses sensory contact, that part tends to atrophy and die. The reason is that portions of a body that cannot communicate their status well enough cannot be compensated properly. When a government presumes one representative for 1000 people, there is very little actual representation that can happen. The real situation of the people is not really known by the government. Security and surveillance cameras attempt to follow every movement and every word spoken, but until they can speak to you and you to them, you are still not being represented "properly" and rationally. Psychological and sociological formulas do not really fill in the gaps despite such attempts.

Proper social networking is what allows sufficient flow of representation to a governing body of the people. If Sally stubbed her toe, there should be proper communication to and from Sally to ensure that her situation is not compromised. The true state and needs of every member should be very much the concern of the governing body because that is the very purpose of their existence. Such things as Homelessness should be an impossibility. That means that you cannot have 1000 people being represented by one person and mere statistics numbers and expect for life to be harmonious.

Good governing means close, well informed representation (extremely well informed by the standards of your day). Decisions that affect people should be decisions that were very considerate of their actual individual situation, not universal, global rules that most often don't really apply to most people. The many must be represented by the many, NOT the few. There is a ratio of the number of people being represented and the number of people governing. The Representative office must be a very large portion of the total group (15-20%) to ensure that the real situation of needs is properly known and handled.
>The people ARE the government.

Another issue that you seem to be misunderstanding is the primitive idea that every group should be independent, having its own medical staff, firemen, teachers, lawyers, plumbers, farmers,... Such isolation efforts tend to undermine harmony and tend to be quite impossible. The wiser plan is not to attempt to do all things yourself, but rather ensure that you have both multiple sources for your needs as well as a means of ensuring those sources. In preparation for emergencies, small local sources should be kept alive, but the group should not expect to be able to live totally off of local sources for all things. Do you manufacture your own tires or do you carry a spare?

Specialization of differing groups is not only expected, but very important to ensure. All people cannot be good at all things. And when they try, they end up being not really good at any. Groups must be allowed (through trade of resources) to specialize so as to become extra good at specific tasks. Groups should be no more all encompassing in their life than an individual person is. Who during your time can really expertly do all of life's requirements all on their own - doctor, lawyer, carpenter, farmer, father, mother, teacher,...? How efficient would your lungs be if they had to also function as your ears and feet? Just as no man is an island, no CRH group is a country.
>Let groups specialize by trading and rational interdependency.

====================================================================

victorel21 wrote:It seems you have everything well planned out, let us wait until WWIII ends to implement it. The only way in which people are going to follow anything new is by seeing their current system fail and even then the vast majority of the old population will try to retain it. (The elite). I still sense it needs some poolishing but I will mull over it better and more throughly so i do not miss any points.

Oh you are right. People never act until it is too late and most have died struggling in futility. But that happens for reason that will soon end.

And yes, it can use some polish. But it was written with adding to it in mind. It is supposed to be merely the most fundamental skeleton. In that way, more people can utilize it in more diverse ways and yet all begin to head toward the rationality, the sanity.

You can be assured that such a constitution is the future. What you must doubt is whether homosapian will choose to be in that future at all. Evolution above all else, is a choice, and so is extinction.