Mediation Scale: Where are you?

[emilynghiem]

Interesting but in this case the baby is ours. We founded the place.

Not even close. People running away from your kind of "government" founded the place, and then kicked your ass out, from Concord & Lexington thru Yorktown.

"Your people" have been trying to crawl back in ever since.

The Tories were your kind of people, not mine. Mine threw a Revolution. We do that sort of thing.

Little Acorn, I think you and PMH bring out the RF and LF in each other.
This is not really the direction that mediation needs to go to work out,
but this is good for venting.

In order to voice objections so that those POINTS can be accounted for in reforming policies, we can't expect to talk to each other in our LF and RF modes.

Venting and grieving is part of the process, so that is natural I guess.

For serious conflict resolution and Redress of Grievances,
we'd have to match people up who can communicate in either
Christian, Constitutional or common terms.

What about this need to bash left and right?
Should all that be cleared out in advance, or just let it happen whenever it erupts?

Do you think we can still moderate on issues and solutions
with that bashing going on? If people UNDERSTAND in advance which members
of discussions lean RF and LF and just tolerate when that clashing happens.

Sorry but we do need to agree how to manage if it's just another part of the process.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Instead, if they COMMUNICATED what the objections were, then no compromise is needed.
We can solve problems and NOT COMPROMISE PRINCIPLES.

The reason "solution" is not possible, nor is "compromise", has nothing to do with "communication".

It is because the two sides want fundamentally different and contradictory things. And no amount of "communication" will change that.

One side wants people to keep what they earn, make their own decisions, make their own arrangements with others for their cooperation and compensation, agree on who will help whom and how much, and basically take responsibility for EVERYTHING that results.

The other side wants government to decide how much people keep of what they created, impose its decisions on those people in lieu of their own, decide for them who will cooperate with whome, who will help whom and how much , and take responsibility for all of it... except for the overall balance of what a society produces, which government is incapable of controlling, except to the extent they can inhibit it.

The two sides are completely incompatible, and one cannot exist if any vestige of the other is present.

My comparison to bank guards vs. bank robbers was not arbitrary. It illustrates the available grounds for either "communication" or "compromise" between the two sides: Zero.

In a nutshell, one side believes in the sanctity and benefits of private property rights. The other side believes that private property rights must be abolished. Communication is useless to bridge the gulf between them.

 

[BlackSand]

An excellent mediator doesn't have to compromise or be moderate.
They don't necessarily have to be left or right either.
To be a good mediator ... All you have to do is get people to agree to a settlement.

Some of the best negotiators and mediators I have dealt with always get what they want ... One way or another.

.

 

[shart_attack]

Great thread.

I am a Right-leaning moderate.

I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans many times.

 

[emilynghiem]

I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

OK I found your final edited message.

* NO the moderators who mediate have ZERO decision making authority in the process.
That is how mediation works. They facilitate only to let the OTHER people communicate.

Very few people can actually do this well anyway.
Most people have their own biases and agenda they won't compromise on,
and will represent that and NOT remain neutral.

Little A, the middle is not the "best position"

The people with the most responsibility are the RC and the LC.

Moderators in the middle have the least role, of mainly coordinating to match up
the others to get help to communicate with each other, and facilitate in between.

The people need to form their own solutions, and then present those agreements
to govt. This is to organize which people need assistance to communicate, so they don't get stuck or censored from the process.

People facilitating need to watch who is getting cut out of the process or policies,
and make sure those problems are really resolved and not just ignored as invalid.

When mediation is done right, nobody compromises but everyone gets their main issues and concerns included. The solutions come out different after everyone's input is accounted for, so people may change their perception of the outcome, But if it is done right, the problems are solved and people get what they really want or need that is most critical.

the biggest change that occurs is about perception of conflict, and that it doesn't have to mean compromising.
Most of the work is finding how to use our differences to develop better solutions we agree solve the problem.
it's not about railroading and coercing, but putting an end to that very trend that is going on now.

 

[natstew]

I refuse to take part in a skewed and screwed poll

 

[Little-Acorn]

For serious conflict resolution and Redress of Grievances,
we'd have to match people up who can communicate in either
Christian, Constitutional or common terms.

The method the Founders put in place, is quite a good one: We vote, and the majority rules. They put in one layer of cushioning: We elect representatives, and THEY vote, with the majority ruling. This removes the relatively small and mundane work of government from our daily lives, letting us get on with the more important business of Real Life.

And the Founders left a nugget in the slagpile: Government has no power to do ANYTHING, unless We The People explicitly give them that power. In other words, the situation started hugely favoring the first side I described above. And any additional power the other side wanted (and they wanted it all), was forbidden, unless very large majorities of BOTH sides agreed.

The side wanting Big Government, has been trying to evade, get around, violate, or simply ignore those restrictions, ever since the society and its government was set up in 1789. The reason they have been skulking and evasive, is because they have had almost zero success getting the large majorities of both sides, that they needed to implement their vision. Instead, they have lied, evaded, and used the smallest voting bodies they could stack - the Courts.

No compromise is possible between the two sides. And no amount of "communication" will change that.

 

[natstew]

I used to be a moderate, until the Left went over the cliff!

 

[flacaltenn]

I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

OK I found your final edited message.

* NO the moderators who mediate have ZERO decision making authority in the process.
That is how mediation works. They facilitate only to let the OTHER people communicate.

Very few people can actually do this well anyway.
Most people have their own biases and agenda they won't compromise on,
and will represent that and NOT remain neutral.

Little A, the middle is not the "best position"

The people with the most responsibility are the RC and the LC.

Moderators in the middle have the least role, of mainly coordinating to match up
the others to get help to communicate with each other, and facilitate in between.

The people need to form their own solutions, and then present those agreements
to govt. This is to organize which people need assistance to communicate, so they don't get stuck or censored from the process.

People facilitating need to watch who is getting cut out of the process or policies,
and make sure those problems are really resolved and not just ignored as invalid.

When mediation is done right, nobody compromises but everyone gets their main issues and concerns included. The solutions come out different after everyone's input is accounted for, so people may change their perception of the outcome, But if it is done right, the problems are solved and people get what they really want or need that is most critical.

the biggest change that occurs is about perception of conflict, and that it doesn't have to mean compromising.
Most of the work is finding how to use our differences to develop better solutions we agree solve the problem.
it's not about railroading and coercing, but putting an end to that very trend that is going on now.

The flaw in that process is that there is no solid relationship between 2 sides "being happy" and having an OPTIMAL or EFFICIENT solution.. I could for instance mediate an energy policy for the USA.. But in making "both sides happy" --- I'd have wasted about 60% of the resources allotted on useless and unworkable crap..

It's inefficient at best and dangerous at the worst to assume that what opposing sides DEMAND in order to reach a compromise has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with actually solving the issue or problem..

 

[emilynghiem]

Instead, if they COMMUNICATED what the objections were, then no compromise is needed.
We can solve problems and NOT COMPROMISE PRINCIPLES.

The reason "solution" is not possible, nor is "compromise", has nothing to do with "communication".

It is because the two sides want fundamentally different and contradictory things. And no amount of "communication" will change that.

One side wants people to keep what they earn, make their own decisions, make their own arrangements with others for their cooperation and compensation, agree on who will help whom and how much, and basically take responsibility for EVERYTHING that results.

The other side wants government to decide how much people keep of what they created, impose its decisions on those people in lieu of their own, decide for them who will cooperate with whome, who will help whom and how much , and take responsibility for all of it... except for the overall balance of what a society produces, which government is incapable of controlling, except to the extent they can inhibit it.

The two sides are completely incompatible, and one cannot exist if any vestige of the other is present.

My comparison to bank guards vs. bank robbers was not arbitrary. It illustrates the available grounds for either "communication" or "compromise" between the two sides: Zero.

In a nutshell, one side believes in the sanctity and benefits of private property rights. The other side believes that private property rights must be abolished. Communication is useless to bridge the gulf between them.

Instead of making generalized arguments,
if you make SPECIFIC arguments, sticking to the PRINCIPLES and POINTS in the POLICIES,
then we can make sure that NOTHING is done IN PRACTICE that is abusive.

Making generalizations about each side does not describe the specific things wrong.

For example, even if I totally disagree with a person's beliefs or motives,
we can AGREE that volunteers raising funds to set up a UNISEX bathroom
is BETTER than arguing over if "transgender teens should use the male or female facilities"
and if public schools have authority to impose a policy one way or another etc. etc.

We can TOTALLY hate each other's views in terms of ideology,
but go through mediation to hammer out the actual issues,
and where we CANNOT agree at all, come up with a solution that doesn't depend on that at all anyway.

Is this a better example?

If we totally disagree, then we need to make sure we DON"T make a public policy
based on such conditions. It would have to be INDEPENDENT of where we are in conflict,
and not go there AT ALL.

With the unisex bathrooms, even the funding and costs would have to be independent where they don't impose on people who don't agree to pay for such accommodations.
Whatever people object to, that should be accommodated.
In the process, we'll figure out what is the best way to resolve the conflicts
where people AGREE there is no compromise of their beliefs.

NOTE: with the health care and social programs issues, this CONFLICT in fundamental beliefs about Constitutional limits on govt
would mean either setting up programs BY PARTY and keep this burden off the public
or setting up microlending through work-study or education programs that are PAID BACK,
or other alternatives to PREVENT from infringing on people's beliefs that govt should not be abused for social services better managed by localized networks.

Again, this is to PREVENT compromise, by setting up agreed solutions that address and resolve the objections.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I get it. This thread is an attempt to pretend that conservatives giving up their principles and agreeing to "some of" the left's demands, is a GOOD thing.

Sort of like the bank guards deciding they really don't have to guard what the regular depositors put in the bank, and that it's OK to let the bank robbers take "some" of it, in the spirit of compromise.

And the middle of the scale, designed to look like a "good" alternative, is the compromise that lets the robbers take exactly half the contents of the vault, while the guards can guard the other half.

Until the robbers come back next month (or next year) and demand more.

OK I found your final edited message.

* NO the moderators who mediate have ZERO decision making authority in the process.
That is how mediation works. They facilitate only to let the OTHER people communicate.

Yup.

Very few people can actually do this well anyway.

There's a reason for that.

Most people have their own biases and agenda they won't compromise on,

"Most people have their beliefs based on experience and education they can't compromise on,"

.....fixed it for you.

and will represent that and NOT remain neutral.

Again for an important, and inevitable, reason.

Little A, the middle is not the "best position"

I glad you realize that. It suggests you grasp the actual, fundamental nature of the problem, despite your irrelevant prattling about "communication".

When mediation is done right, nobody compromises but everyone gets their main issues and concerns included.

The fundamental self-contradiction in this statement, identifies why your "communication" approach is the wrong one, and is incapable of solving the actual problem.

In a nutshell, one side has found the way to create what they need to have the safest, most prosperous society possible for us imperfect humans. The other side wants to take it rather than participate in its creation. As I said, my comparison to bank guards and bank robbers, was neither arbitrary nor inaccurate.

No compromise is possible, nor is any solution that gives both sides what they want.

And no "communication" will make any difference. It's also not necessary: Each side understands the other quite well. "Communication" will change nothing, no matter how much of it you do.

Until one side decides that what it wants, is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Again, this is to PREVENT compromise, by setting up agreed solutions that address and resolve the objections.

You are assuming that such solutions exist, and are merely waiting to be discovered by sufficient searching and analysis.

Because you are assuming that both parties, in the final analysis, want the same thing.

You assume wrongly, on both counts.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. The flaw in that process is that there is no solid relationship between 2 sides "being happy" and having an OPTIMAL or EFFICIENT solution.. I could for instance mediate an energy policy for the USA.. But in making "both sides happy" --- I'd have wasted about 60% of the resources allotted on useless and unworkable crap.. [/b[

2. It's inefficient at best and dangerous at the worst to assume that what opposing sides DEMAND in order to reach a compromise has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with actually solving the issue or problem..

1. Why not include the engineers or academic institutions that can help distinguish
what is "useless and unworkable crap" from what are viable sustainable solutions?

2. What you describe seems more like what is going on now, which is compromising to come up with crap before the arbitrary deadline.

This process is to AVOID that by solving the actual issue or problem.
So your objection in #2 is EXACTLY what I am asking to get rid of using real mediation.

2a. The purpose of INCLUDING people's self-represented beliefs and demands
is to make sure they are fully immersed and included in the process.

Once they are assured representation and defense of interests,
it is MUCH EASIER to work through the specific points and solve the actual issues.

If you've ever talked with counselors who do mediation, one step is to let parties vent their viewpoints and make sure all their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. They have to trust the process, the facilitators and each other, or else get different mediators.

After that, the points come second. We can't even get to the content if people are fighting over inclusion and exclusion. So those are two separate levels.

3. The real connection is on the level of laws by conscience, usually communicated using either Christian or Constitutional principles that people share in common. That is the tool to restore relationship "on the level of conscience" between the sides. if that foundation can be established as "all inclusive" then all grievances can be worked out from there.

if that trust is broken, and people see no connection or commitment, you are right there is no motivation to work toward any resolution. We have to establish a common commitment, and I find people either connect using Constitutional principles or Christian laws in order to mediate conflicts in the spirit of equal justice or Restorative Justice effectively.

 

[BlackSand]

The key in most cases is the ability to control the dialog ...And not the principles of disagreement.

If you control the dialog ... You automatically put the opposing party on the defensive.
They will spend their time combating the material concerns of what you want ... And less time devising their own strategy for success.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, this is to PREVENT compromise, by setting up agreed solutions that address and resolve the objections.

You are assuming that such solutions exist, and are merely waiting to be discovered by sufficient searching and analysis.

Because you are assuming that both parties, in the final analysis, want the same thing.

You assume wrongly, on both counts.

I have found many solutions already proven and working in practice.

It depends what issues people are focused on, which conflicts could be solved in which way.

Again you are talking in VERY generalized terms.

Can you pick some SAMPLE issues of things you feel do not have a solution,
and I can give you EXAMPLES of some options I would recommend joint teams to
consider. And let people decide for themselves how to solve these problems. I can offer ideas, based on other working models, but let the process be owned by the people.

Little A, you are talking to someone who believes we can even form a consensus on the meaning of God and Jesus by mediating between people of different groups.

That's never been done in the history of the world, and I believe we can do it.
So next to that, anything can be done using the same process of working through
all people's ideas and objections, and correcting all the problems that we bring up.

In reality, I believe a consensus among religious groups may be necessary first, to provide the unity and SUPPORT to address the political and economic problems second. The practical problems and solutions will take more work to develop (since this involves real life logistics and change in a conflicted political environment with diverse regulations and institutions to go through to get things done); the other level of religious concepts is theoretical and can be worked out on a verbal and intellectual level to reach resolutions.

LA I don't believe the human conscience will find PEACE until we agree how to work things out. Even if we don't finish the process, we need to agree how to set up the process or we will fight and have constant unrest and waste of resources we cannot afford to keep losing.

So I think solutions are inevitable because the human consciences seeks truth and justice.

Thanks, I believe your conviction is part of that insistence on truth and not compromising, that drives us to ideal solutions.
This is why I believe human nature is so driven, because of the commitment you have.

 

[emilynghiem]

No compromise is possible, nor is any solution that gives both sides what they want.

And no "communication" will make any difference. It's also not necessary: Each side understands the other quite well. "Communication" will change nothing, no matter how much of it you do.

Until one side decides that what it wants, is fundamentally wrong.

OK you keep assuming that one side wants to "take it all away from others."

According to my coworker when I brought up this issue of EDUCATING and TRAINING people to own and manage their OWN property and businesses,
at first he didn't believe it was possible.

Then he argued as long as city/county/federal govt imposes taxes, they can take your property away.

So then I argued what about setting up cities where districts are owned by the residents.
so you manage your own taxes to go into your own services and schools PER district.

What is preventing this is the "rich" and the "poor" keep blaming each other.
What if the people joined forces and agreed to buy out their districts and share
ownership? Where the experienced owners train the new interns how to manage
a house first, then a set, or an apt or business to become independent.

So you can own your own things and NOT have to "take from someone else."

My argument is how else are people going to be EQUAL.
if our Constitutional laws cite "Equal Protection" of the laws, then people need
equal knowledge experience and training in laws, in business and property and financial management to be fully independent and equal.

So that is a CONSTITUTIONAL principle being enforced.

Within the Constitutional framework, then we can accommodate people
who are NOT YET equal, and set up training and microlending through educational
programs to work their way up to any level they aspire to.

if the lending is against debts owed to taxpayers (and paid back as restitution
by the wrongdoers) or if it is investor money where people earn benefits
similar to the federal reserve investors, that can be worked out where the
investments pay off, and people own the property and programs they develop themselves.

So there is a way for people to get what they want without compromising.

It will take unified concerted efforts, and most of all, it takes rebuilding trust in relations
based on common principles we need to establish as the foundation.

But what we have now is NOT equal and NOT sustainable.
So we have NO CHOICE but to set up systems that are viable and don't depend
on this handout mentality. We have to replace that with something that works.

Many nonprofits build clinics, schools and community facilities.
We can combine nonprofit development with restitution from trafficking
and reinvest resources into building teaching hospitals and campuses for
sustainable jobs in education and social services. That's just one model I propose.

Foreign slave labor, and buying cheap products from China while they abuse their workers and build a huge military complex with all that money is NOT sustainable or safe.

So LA we have no choice but to start converting to more sustainable systems anyway.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Again, this is to PREVENT compromise, by setting up agreed solutions that address and resolve the objections.

You are assuming that such solutions exist, and are merely waiting to be discovered by sufficient searching and analysis.

Because you are assuming that both parties, in the final analysis, want the same thing.

You assume wrongly, on both counts.

Can you pick some SAMPLE issues of things you feel do not have a solution,
and I can give you EXAMPLES of some options I would recommend joint teams to
consider.

I have already given two:

1.) The conflict between the goals of conservative government and modern-liberal government; and
2.) The conflict between the goals of bank guards and bank robbers.

Pick one. I'm game.

Little A, you are talking to someone who believes we can even form a consensus on the meaning of God and Jesus by mediating between people of different groups.

That's nice. Unfortunately, those are not the areas of conflict we are talking about. Or at least, not the ones that I am talking about. If your thrust all along was to mediate religious differences, then few if any of my comments apply, and I apologize for diverting your thread.

But this is a "Politics" forum, not a religion forum.

LA I don't believe the human conscience will find PEACE until we agree how to work things out.

I certainly agree.

So I think solutions are inevitable because the human consciences seeks truth and justice.

The need for a solution, bears little relation to the availability of a solution. As I said earlier, in the situation I have talked about, there is ZERO relation.

 

[eagle1462010]

I believe in a return to the Constitution, and that we have strayed too far from it. Going back to it's fundamental principles is needed. I will unlikely be willing to compromise on these issues.

There is a line in the sand in this country between the right and left. I can't compromise with Far left leaning types as they are off the reservation. Between a Blue Dog or Moderate Democrat..........Then there may be compromise possible.

The Moderates of both sides have been the stabilizing element of Congress. They are too far and few between to come to terms anymore.

 

[BlackSand]

A true compromise only happens when both sides are equally dissatisfied with the results.
.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Between a Blue Dog or Moderate Democrat..........Then there may be compromise possible.

Right. Those folks would offer to leave most of the money in the bank vault.

The Moderates of both sides have been the stabilizing element of Congress. They are too far and few between to come to terms anymore.

The "compromises" engineered by the moderates on both sides, have resulted in the country sliding to the left at a "moderate" speed, instead of slamming to the left as Russia did in 1917, and Germany did in the 1930s.

And probably their most significant achievement, is that they managed to fool some Americans into thinking that this was a GOOD thing.