Please Comment: Principles of Reflective Centrism

[hangover]

There it is. Those ideas of what reality is, are only "perceptions". All these herds, like science, Christianity, Islam, the GOP, and the DNC, have their "perceptions" of reality. But no one has a monopoly on reality. Until all these herds are willing to recognize that, and are willing to give up their "beliefs", in favor of the "truth" of reality, the evolution of humanity will remain stuck in it's stupidity. Some groups(herds), like science do re-evaluate their "perceptions" when they are found to be erroneous.

I don't think it is necessary or fair to expect people to 'give up' their beliefs about reality, since they do think them legit. If we can all just engage with each other in discussion we can grow and learn from each other, and find our way without anyone being compelled to convert from one faith to another or none at all.

I don't "expect" anyone to give up their beliefs. That's like a Christian trying to convert a Muslim, or visa versa. But, until they do the world will have strife.

Other herds, like religions and political parties are determined to wallow in their stupidity. i.e. The Catholics burning people at the stake for heresy, because they knew the world revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. And then a thousand years later, said..."Oh, uh sorry."

For example, this thing about the Catholic Church burning people at the stake for believing the Earth orbits the sun is a modern Protestant myth.

No myth. The Catholic church burned thousands at the stake for heresy for a thousand years. No only for astronomy, but for anything that opposed Catholic dogma. There in lies the strife. Like trying to convert Afghanistan and Iraq to western ideology. Stupid, huh.

 

[oldfart]

But how can we utilize 'all voices' if we ostracize those who are irrational, seditious, and dishonest? Who determines who those people are? Oldfart, for instance, immediately put me in that group. There are at least a couple of dozen other members at USMB who would put me in that group and do so pretty consistently.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Which of my posts are you referring too? I try to conduct my posting behavior according to a set of standards, i.e.

1. Treat everyone with respect and collegiality unless they fail to provide that courtesy to someone else first. Calibrate the response to the provocation. So if you call someone an asshole, I will probably call you an idiot. If you make sweeping absurd generalizations, I will call you out. If your post is reasonable and measured, I assume good will and behave appropriately.

2. I try to differentiate between statements made in posts and characteristics of posters. I'm more likely to say, "That doesn't make sense" than "You are an idiot". I often refer to behavior as "disappointing" or "childish". The ultimate insult is "You are making Big Bird (or Mr. Rogers) sad."

3. I try to explain and teach most of the time. When I do so, I try to park my more obnoxious political opinions at the door. When I talk about economics or history, or taxation, I usually try to give my opinion as well as the "mainstream" story, clearly label them, and not play games with data, sources, and the like.

Now if I have abused any of these standards, I apologize and would appreciate you pointing out to me the offending posts. I want to improve my posting behavior, especially when it is perceived as abrasive. I would consider you doing this a personal favor.

Having said that, I relish a good debate. I prefer that they be at an elevated level, but if they get abrasive, I can handle that (I have a thick skin on most issues, there are a few people would do well to stay away from. I'd list some, but then some asshole would start baiting me on them. When I go over the top, this is usually why).

Not agreeing with either right or left is not necessarily being a centrist, however. I also frequently disagree with those on both right and left who are arguing a point, but I would never describe myself as a centrist.

Because I don't believe A or B but do believe C does not necessarily equate with C = the center.

I am not a centrist. A centrist position arrived at by compromise is usually a horrible policy made by a committee. I also am eclectic, being libertarian in many respects, conservative in a few, progressive in most, pragmatic as much as I can, and extremist in some of my solutions. If that fails, I rely on being contrarian.

I believe I can be persuaded in most issues of policy. One of my frustrations is that I have encountered better attacks on my positions than I get here, but many posters choose cant over good argument. I would consider a sock puppet to give these views if it were not against board rules. And yes, I argue with myself all the time.

So coming back to JB's #1 on the list in the OP:

1. No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in.
...a. So ALL voices are needed to help define what that reality is and how to address issues that arise within it as we all work together toward a better future.
...b.We must respect the benevolent rational thoughts of our fellow citizens by extending to them courtesy and ostracizing those who are irrational, seditious and dishonest and to provide our own rational thinking supported by facts as far as we are able​

.

How would I reword it?

The thesis I agree with 100%: "No human mind or ideology can fully encompass the complexity of the reality we live in."

I agree. As I have stated before, there is no absolute objective reality. We all form models of the world based on our sensory experiences and interactions with others. We survive because in most aspects most of us share that same reality (sunshine is hot, liquids run downhill, and so forth), but that is not 100%. A good definition of insanity is not participating in the shared reality sufficiently to function adequately. And of course there are a lot of issues where competing realities split about 50-50 (UFOs, angels and demons, efficacy of prayer, supernatural phenomena, etc.).

So when discussing about anything, it is useful to determine to what extent you and the other participants have a shared reality. The fact that you do not share their reality in one particular aspect does not mean that your perception is right and theirs is wrong. This is not moral relativism, it is differing life experiences.

So I would have explained the thesis with a concept of soliciting all opinions and looking at the pros and cons of those opinions without prejudice or preconceived notions and examining each on merit with the goal of achieving consensus on which has the most merit.

Everyone has preconceived notions and prejudices. The trick is to realize your own and compensate for them. Denying that you have them is the greatest prejudice of all (all people should be like me!).

Merit is an incredibly elastic term, much like "common good". Often it is simply a handy shorthand for our own prejudices and values. When anyone sounds like they think "merit" is an objective reality devoid of value judgments, alarm bells go off in my brain.

And I believe that consensus is another name for bad policy arrived at by committee. The fact that many people agree to a bad policy does not make it a better policy, it just makes more people with a vested interest in defending the bad policy and correcting it that the much more difficult. Think: Vietnam War.

While we can use history and documented track records to inform us, what should not be included--what should not be allowed--in that process is attacking any person, group, or entity, past or present, in that process.

Now here we disagree. Good decision-making requires vigorous, often passionate debate. Debate is an intellectual combat sport. Those who violate the rules need to bear consequences. Bad reasoning deserves ridicule. Sources with major flaws should be revealed when someone uses them in an appeal to authority. I would agree that extraneous personal attacks are out of bounds and that the least abrasive responses are preferable when answering anyone posting in good faith. But in this board, too many posters start with insults and go downhill from there. If they find the response abrasive, they should review their own posting habits.

This is where I am coming from. I hope this explains my posting behavior. All suggestions will receive the consideration they "merit"!

Peace all, Jamie

 

[oldfart]

Here's my take (see preceding post):

Do you think it difficult to determine who or what is "irrational, seditious or dishonest?

Yes, sufficiently difficult for me to oppose all prior censorship.

How have those character faults become subjective? There are no universal truths? No actions that fall outside of accepted norms?

There is no shared reality subscribed to by 100% of society, but some things come close. Then there is a continuum. As I noted, some things split about 50-50. Ergo there are no universal truths. There are truths that 99.9% of us agree on, and we proceed as if they were universal, but over time some of those truths (divine right of kings?) have not endured. Likewise "accepted norms" change. How many heretics has the Christian Churches burned in the last decade (excluding about 20 for witchcraft)?

And if general consensus is that a certain individual acts as described (irrational, seditious or dishonest) why would anyone seek their opinion on anything?

Troubled and immature minds are fodder for all kinds of nonsense. Otherwise cults would not exist.

And some views don't have merit worthy of consideration.

To the contrary, the most objectionable should be exposed to each generation and rebuted. I showed "Triumph of the Will" to my classes so they could understand manipulation of emotions for the benefit of totalitarianism. Many were profoundly disturbed by the emotional attraction of the film. Some were upset with parallels between the devices used in the film and many political and religious movements.

But I do agree that showing an element of restraint to a POV is possible. Unless the POV is so egregious that it can't be tolerated.

Making any ideology verboten is a bad idea. Expose it to the sunlight of scorn and ridicule. If that is not sufficient, we are lost anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

But how can we utilize 'all voices' if we ostracize those who are irrational, seditious, and dishonest? Who determines who those people are? Oldfart, for instance, immediately put me in that group. There are at least a couple of dozen other members at USMB who would put me in that group and do so pretty consistently.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Which of my posts are you referring too? I try to conduct my posting behavior according to a set of standards, i.e.

1. Treat everyone with respect and collegiality unless they fail to provide that courtesy to someone else first. Calibrate the response to the provocation. So if you call someone an asshole, I will probably call you an idiot. If you make sweeping absurd generalizations, I will call you out. If your post is reasonable and measured, I assume good will and behave appropriately.

2. I try to differentiate between statements made in posts and characteristics of posters. I'm more likely to say, "That doesn't make sense" than "You are an idiot". I often refer to behavior as "disappointing" or "childish". The ultimate insult is "You are making Big Bird (or Mr. Rogers) sad."

3. I try to explain and teach most of the time. When I do so, I try to park my more obnoxious political opinions at the door. When I talk about economics or history, or taxation, I usually try to give my opinion as well as the "mainstream" story, clearly label them, and not play games with data, sources, and the like.

Now if I have abused any of these standards, I apologize and would appreciate you pointing out to me the offending posts. I want to improve my posting behavior, especially when it is perceived as abrasive. I would consider you doing this a personal favor.

Having said that, I relish a good debate. I prefer that they be at an elevated level, but if they get abrasive, I can handle that (I have a thick skin on most issues, there are a few people would do well to stay away from. I'd list some, but then some asshole would start baiting me on them. When I go over the top, this is usually why).

Not agreeing with either right or left is not necessarily being a centrist, however. I also frequently disagree with those on both right and left who are arguing a point, but I would never describe myself as a centrist.

Because I don't believe A or B but do believe C does not necessarily equate with C = the center.

I am not a centrist. A centrist position arrived at by compromise is usually a horrible policy made by a committee. I also am eclectic, being libertarian in many respects, conservative in a few, progressive in most, pragmatic as much as I can, and extremist in some of my solutions. If that fails, I rely on being contrarian.

I believe I can be persuaded in most issues of policy. One of my frustrations is that I have encountered better attacks on my positions than I get here, but many posters choose cant over good argument. I would consider a sock puppet to give these views if it were not against board rules. And yes, I argue with myself all the time.



I agree. As I have stated before, there is no absolute objective reality. We all form models of the world based on our sensory experiences and interactions with others. We survive because in most aspects most of us share that same reality (sunshine is hot, liquids run downhill, and so forth), but that is not 100%. A good definition of insanity is not participating in the shared reality sufficiently to function adequately. And of course there are a lot of issues where competing realities split about 50-50 (UFOs, angels and demons, efficacy of prayer, supernatural phenomena, etc.).

So when discussing about anything, it is useful to determine to what extent you and the other participants have a shared reality. The fact that you do not share their reality in one particular aspect does not mean that your perception is right and theirs is wrong. This is not moral relativism, it is differing life experiences.

So I would have explained the thesis with a concept of soliciting all opinions and looking at the pros and cons of those opinions without prejudice or preconceived notions and examining each on merit with the goal of achieving consensus on which has the most merit.

Everyone has preconceived notions and prejudices. The trick is to realize your own and compensate for them. Denying that you have them is the greatest prejudice of all (all people should be like me!).

Merit is an incredibly elastic term, much like "common good". Often it is simply a handy shorthand for our own prejudices and values. When anyone sounds like they think "merit" is an objective reality devoid of value judgments, alarm bells go off in my brain.

And I believe that consensus is another name for bad policy arrived at by committee. The fact that many people agree to a bad policy does not make it a better policy, it just makes more people with a vested interest in defending the bad policy and correcting it that the much more difficult. Think: Vietnam War.

While we can use history and documented track records to inform us, what should not be included--what should not be allowed--in that process is attacking any person, group, or entity, past or present, in that process.

Now here we disagree. Good decision-making requires vigorous, often passionate debate. Debate is an intellectual combat sport. Those who violate the rules need to bear consequences. Bad reasoning deserves ridicule. Sources with major flaws should be revealed when someone uses them in an appeal to authority. I would agree that extraneous personal attacks are out of bounds and that the least abrasive responses are preferable when answering anyone posting in good faith. But in this board, too many posters start with insults and go downhill from there. If they find the response abrasive, they should review their own posting habits.

This is where I am coming from. I hope this explains my posting behavior. All suggestions will receive the consideration they "merit"!

Peace all, Jamie

I did not take offense. I don't know you well enough to take offense. But while you were accusing me of 'generalizing', in my opinion you skim that borderline area between rebutting or challenging or agreeing with my opinions and attacking me. My post referred to this initial one of yours:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...iples-of-reflective-centrism.html#post8433581

And you can't reject generalization if you won't allow people to be specific with their opinons.

A real conundrum sometimes though. We all walk that tightrope on a message board in one way or another. Some have the gift of being able to address a concept or opinion and discuss that concept or opinion. And some seem hopelessly incapable of doing that but will almost invariably attack the messenger, past or present, instead. And make moral judgments of the people rather than comprehensive assessment of the concepts, policy, or attitudes they promoted.

Without some form of despotism, overt or benign, there is no way to move people with opposing views forward without some form of compromise or consensus. The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful, shining document of what compromise or consensus can accomplish. But that was consensus to achieve a greater purpose. A consensus purely to say that one was achieved is almost always unsatisfying to many and very often harmful. (And in some cases is dishonest.)

 

[zeke]

Where would I find the person that feels murder without just cause of a friend or loved one, would be an action at least worthy of consideration and merit?

Same question about rape. Who would consider that the rapist had cause in their rape of a loved one?

Maybe in the world of ideas, most things can be at least tolerated and discussed. But in the world of actions and consequences, some acts or beyond the ability to tolerate.

Slavery. Who can make a good case to accept and allow the condition of enslaving another human being. And seeing as how there is no "good case" to be made, why would anyone consider the idea of slavery with merit. That person is sick in the head.

Rape, murder, slavery, those seem to be three actions universally hated. Without merit. Unworthy of consideration as a course of action.

Of course, I have confused morality with politics. My bad.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There it is. Those ideas of what reality is, are only "perceptions". All these herds, like science, Christianity, Islam, the GOP, and the DNC, have their "perceptions" of reality. But no one has a monopoly on reality. Until all these herds are willing to recognize that, and are willing to give up their "beliefs", in favor of the "truth" of reality, the evolution of humanity will remain stuck in it's stupidity. Some groups(herds), like science do re-evaluate their "perceptions" when they are found to be erroneous.

I don't think it is necessary or fair to expect people to 'give up' their beliefs about reality, since they do think them legit. If we can all just engage with each other in discussion we can grow and learn from each other, and find our way without anyone being compelled to convert from one faith to another or none at all.

I don't "expect" anyone to give up their beliefs. That's like a Christian trying to convert a Muslim, or visa versa. But, until they do the world will have strife.

Other herds, like religions and political parties are determined to wallow in their stupidity. i.e. The Catholics burning people at the stake for heresy, because they knew the world revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. And then a thousand years later, said..."Oh, uh sorry."

For example, this thing about the Catholic Church burning people at the stake for believing the Earth orbits the sun is a modern Protestant myth.

No myth. The Catholic church burned thousands at the stake for heresy for a thousand years. No only for astronomy, but for anything that opposed Catholic dogma. There in lies the strife. Like trying to convert Afghanistan and Iraq to western ideology. Stupid, huh.

No, it is a myth. While Bloody Mary burned a few hundred heretics, Elizabeth had a number of her subjects burned as well. One estimate put the total number of people executed by the inquisition on all ages as around 3,000, nothing compared to the human loss at the hands of secularists in one century alone; the 20th.

Historical revision of the Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But this is the last comment I am going to make on it, not wanting to derail it. Maybe I will start a new thread sometime soon on the topic.

I have been so busy this past weekend. I am sorry.

 

[hangover]

No, it is a myth. While Bloody Mary burned a few hundred heretics, Elizabeth had a number of her subjects burned as well. One estimate put the total number of people executed by the inquisition on all ages as around 3,000, nothing compared to the human loss at the hands of secularists in one century alone; the 20th.

ONLY three thousand, only? How does what Mary did excuse what the Catholic church did? That's like saying Hitler killed six million Jews, so Truman nuking a quarter million civilian Japanese is no big deal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it is a myth. While Bloody Mary burned a few hundred heretics, Elizabeth had a number of her subjects burned as well. One estimate put the total number of people executed by the inquisition on all ages as around 3,000, nothing compared to the human loss at the hands of secularists in one century alone; the 20th.

ONLY three thousand, only? How does what Mary did excuse what the Catholic church did? That's like saying Hitler killed six million Jews, so Truman nuking a quarter million civilian Japanese is no big deal.

whatev

 

[oldfart]

I did not take offense. I don't know you well enough to take offense. But while you were accusing me of 'generalizing', in my opinion you skim that borderline area between rebutting or challenging or agreeing with my opinions and attacking me. My post referred to this initial one of yours:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...iples-of-reflective-centrism.html#post8433581

We have already discussed my use of hyperbole in that post, so I won't rehash that again. Do you deny that your OP was a "good guy" vs "bad guy" post? You characterized conservatives in glowing terms and liberals in derogatory terms.

Nevertheless, I value your posts and hope to read many more in the future.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not take offense. I don't know you well enough to take offense. But while you were accusing me of 'generalizing', in my opinion you skim that borderline area between rebutting or challenging or agreeing with my opinions and attacking me. My post referred to this initial one of yours:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...iples-of-reflective-centrism.html#post8433581

We have already discussed my use of hyperbole in that post, so I won't rehash that again. Do you deny that your OP was a "good guy" vs "bad guy" post? You characterized conservatives in glowing terms and liberals in derogatory terms.

Nevertheless, I value your posts and hope to read many more in the future.

First I didn't make the opening post in this thread so I certainly do deny that my OP was a "good guy" vs "bad guy" post. The post you quoted however was in response to a specific comment, which I quoted, and my response there also did not make a moral judgment of 'good' or 'bad' in any way. It pointed to my observations of how conservatives and liberals most often make an argument. It spoke in no way to the virtues of the motives of either. I am perfectly able and willing to defend my point of view on that, but saw no reason to do that, yet again, at that time as it would likely have derailed the thread.

But thanks for the compliment. Always good to have another traveler on the bumpy ride here.

 

[emilynghiem]

My understanding of Isonomy is based on the concepts of
* Judicial Reform for equal justice and peace
by moving from Retributive Justice toward Restorative Justice
(focus on correction and restitution instead of judgment and punishment)
* Legislative Reform based on respect for the consent of the governed
by conflict resolution (instead of conflicts of interest)
and equal protection of the laws (instead of political bullying by partisan abuse of majority-rule)
* Executive Reform based on equal law enforcement and security
by collective responsibility (instead of collective punishment) and collaborative economics between business, church, nonprofit and government groups (instead of unfair competition by abusing collective influence or corporate personhood to bypass checks and balances under the Constitution)

Dear Jim: Whatever webpage you set up to post your Centrist principles, I would like to link that on a website to promote inter-party "collaborative" politics, and bring together solutions using the best ideas from all views, people and parties, from all angles, instead of competing.

I visualize "isonomy" or "isocracy" like a soccer ball. Each person is like a point on the globe, where we are the highest, central point from our viewpoint, but we are below someone else from their position as the center of their network. Each person can thus build a network or organization around them, and these are all EQUAL on the globe. They do not compete with each other to be on top. We all serve others when they lead a good idea where they are the expert and central point person in charge; and likewise others help us where we are in charge of what we contribute best.

So this collaborative model is where I believe social, political and economic reform is heading. And we can organize these parties and affiliated organizations and networks through the media/internet and connecting by schools system, delegated by department to focus on the various solutions to economic and political problems. We can organize resources around the best solutions, and create jobs and internships to train leaders by working directly on reforms and building experience so we train govt officials before they take office, not practice or experiment on the public after they get elected!

Thanks Jim

I look forward to seeing your final statement of principles.

You may use any ideas off my webpages where I was trying to spell these out also:
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/isocracy.html
Earned Amnesty

By resolving conflicts, so that all decisions INCLUDE reflect represent and protect "all interests and views EQUALLY"
I believe this fulfills the Constitutional and ethical standards in the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment already spell out what we need to make self-government self-checking, balanced, and equally inclusive.
But with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service added, this can help move from where we are now, with corporate interests skewing govt decisions and throwing off if not blocking the checks and balance,
back to a more consistent standard of practice, especially where due process and representation has been blocked by partisan politics taking over the legislature, courts, and media.

 

[Foxfyre]

My understanding of Isonomy is based on the concepts of
* Judicial Reform for equal justice and peace
by moving from Retributive Justice toward Restorative Justice
(focus on correction and restitution instead of judgment and punishment)
* Legislative Reform based on respect for the consent of the governed
by conflict resolution (instead of conflicts of interest)
and equal protection of the laws (instead of political bullying by partisan abuse of majority-rule)
* Executive Reform based on equal law enforcement and security
by collective responsibility (instead of collective punishment) and collaborative economics between business, church, nonprofit and government groups (instead of unfair competition by abusing collective influence or corporate personhood to bypass checks and balances under the Constitution)

Dear Jim: Whatever webpage you set up to post your Centrist principles, I would like to link that on a website to promote inter-party "collaborative" politics, and bring together solutions using the best ideas from all views, people and parties, from all angles, instead of competing.

I visualize "isonomy" or "isocracy" like a soccer ball. Each person is like a point on the globe, where we are the highest, central point from our viewpoint, but we are below someone else from their position as the center of their network. Each person can thus build a network or organization around them, and these are all EQUAL on the globe. They do not compete with each other to be on top. We all serve others when they lead a good idea where they are the expert and central point person in charge; and likewise others help us where we are in charge of what we contribute best.

So this collaborative model is where I believe social, political and economic reform is heading. And we can organize these parties and affiliated organizations and networks through the media/internet and connecting by schools system, delegated by department to focus on the various solutions to economic and political problems. We can organize resources around the best solutions, and create jobs and internships to train leaders by working directly on reforms and building experience so we train govt officials before they take office, not practice or experiment on the public after they get elected!

Thanks Jim

I look forward to seeing your final statement of principles.

You may use any ideas off my webpages where I was trying to spell these out also:
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Earned Amnesty

By resolving conflicts, so that all decisions INCLUDE reflect represent and protect "all interests and views EQUALLY"
I believe this fulfills the Constitutional and ethical standards in the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment already spell out what we need to make self-government self-checking, balanced, and equally inclusive.
But with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service added, this can help move from where we are now, with corporate interests skewing govt decisions and throwing off if not blocking the checks and balance,
back to a more consistent standard of practice, especially where due process and representation has been blocked by partisan politics taking over the legislature, courts, and media.

Represent--hear--all interests equally, yes. Protect all interests equally no. All interests are not worthy of protection nor should we protect those interests that are in conflict with the rights of others.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it is a myth. While Bloody Mary burned a few hundred heretics, Elizabeth had a number of her subjects burned as well. One estimate put the total number of people executed by the inquisition on all ages as around 3,000, nothing compared to the human loss at the hands of secularists in one century alone; the 20th.

ONLY three thousand, only? How does what Mary did excuse what the Catholic church did? That's like saying Hitler killed six million Jews, so Truman nuking a quarter million civilian Japanese is no big deal.

Notes:
1. Actually I was informed it was closer to 4 million Jews and up to 2 million other "undesirables" including gypsies, gays, disabled or rejects from other minority groups or political dissidents

2. what is more important than the number killed and injustice/damage inflicted
is WHICH cases of killing/injustice are forgiven, where the wrongdoers and wronged work together to address and correct the conflicts that caused the wars and killings? That is one aspect that made Mandela so great and remembered: his truth commissions brought together the people who did the political violence, so there was justice and healing to bring lasting peace.

What I learned from watching politics, one disaster after another, taking turns projecting blame back and forth, is justice is not counted by the wrongs committed.

What matters for justice is how much is forgiven, healed and corrected.
That is where the value is, that can be invested in the future to break the cycle.
Harping on the debts, damages and blame just digs bigger and bigger holes nobody wants to fill.

Now I look instead at who is filling the holes, fixing the broken relations and foundations, in order to build stronger roads, bridges, and infrastructure that will carry the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My understanding of Isonomy is based on the concepts of
* Judicial Reform for equal justice and peace
by moving from Retributive Justice toward Restorative Justice
(focus on correction and restitution instead of judgment and punishment)
* Legislative Reform based on respect for the consent of the governed
by conflict resolution (instead of conflicts of interest)
and equal protection of the laws (instead of political bullying by partisan abuse of majority-rule)
* Executive Reform based on equal law enforcement and security
by collective responsibility (instead of collective punishment) and collaborative economics between business, church, nonprofit and government groups (instead of unfair competition by abusing collective influence or corporate personhood to bypass checks and balances under the Constitution)

Dear Jim: Whatever webpage you set up to post your Centrist principles, I would like to link that on a website to promote inter-party "collaborative" politics, and bring together solutions using the best ideas from all views, people and parties, from all angles, instead of competing.

I visualize "isonomy" or "isocracy" like a soccer ball. Each person is like a point on the globe, where we are the highest, central point from our viewpoint, but we are below someone else from their position as the center of their network. Each person can thus build a network or organization around them, and these are all EQUAL on the globe. They do not compete with each other to be on top. We all serve others when they lead a good idea where they are the expert and central point person in charge; and likewise others help us where we are in charge of what we contribute best.

So this collaborative model is where I believe social, political and economic reform is heading. And we can organize these parties and affiliated organizations and networks through the media/internet and connecting by schools system, delegated by department to focus on the various solutions to economic and political problems. We can organize resources around the best solutions, and create jobs and internships to train leaders by working directly on reforms and building experience so we train govt officials before they take office, not practice or experiment on the public after they get elected!

Thanks Jim

I look forward to seeing your final statement of principles.

You may use any ideas off my webpages where I was trying to spell these out also:
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Earned Amnesty

By resolving conflicts, so that all decisions INCLUDE reflect represent and protect "all interests and views EQUALLY"
I believe this fulfills the Constitutional and ethical standards in the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment already spell out what we need to make self-government self-checking, balanced, and equally inclusive.
But with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service added, this can help move from where we are now, with corporate interests skewing govt decisions and throwing off if not blocking the checks and balance,
back to a more consistent standard of practice, especially where due process and representation has been blocked by partisan politics taking over the legislature, courts, and media.

Represent--hear--all interests equally, yes. Protect all interests equally no. All interests are not worthy of protection nor should we protect those interests that are in conflict with the rights of others.

And whose ideas are better should work its way out in democratic elections resulting from the competition of ideas in a free market of ideas; elections.

Many things can mutate those markets of ideas into government elite controlled rubber stamps like in Venezuela, but I cam not inclined to go into that too much yet. Would rather build foundational ideas first for this un-ideology, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My understanding of Isonomy is based on the concepts of
* Judicial Reform for equal justice and peace
by moving from Retributive Justice toward Restorative Justice
(focus on correction and restitution instead of judgment and punishment)
* Legislative Reform based on respect for the consent of the governed
by conflict resolution (instead of conflicts of interest)
and equal protection of the laws (instead of political bullying by partisan abuse of majority-rule)
* Executive Reform based on equal law enforcement and security
by collective responsibility (instead of collective punishment) and collaborative economics between business, church, nonprofit and government groups (instead of unfair competition by abusing collective influence or corporate personhood to bypass checks and balances under the Constitution)

Dear Jim: Whatever webpage you set up to post your Centrist principles, I would like to link that on a website to promote inter-party "collaborative" politics, and bring together solutions using the best ideas from all views, people and parties, from all angles, instead of competing.

I visualize "isonomy" or "isocracy" like a soccer ball. Each person is like a point on the globe, where we are the highest, central point from our viewpoint, but we are below someone else from their position as the center of their network. Each person can thus build a network or organization around them, and these are all EQUAL on the globe. They do not compete with each other to be on top. We all serve others when they lead a good idea where they are the expert and central point person in charge; and likewise others help us where we are in charge of what we contribute best.

So this collaborative model is where I believe social, political and economic reform is heading. And we can organize these parties and affiliated organizations and networks through the media/internet and connecting by schools system, delegated by department to focus on the various solutions to economic and political problems. We can organize resources around the best solutions, and create jobs and internships to train leaders by working directly on reforms and building experience so we train govt officials before they take office, not practice or experiment on the public after they get elected!

Thanks Jim

I look forward to seeing your final statement of principles.

You may use any ideas off my webpages where I was trying to spell these out also:
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Earned Amnesty

By resolving conflicts, so that all decisions INCLUDE reflect represent and protect "all interests and views EQUALLY"
I believe this fulfills the Constitutional and ethical standards in the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment already spell out what we need to make self-government self-checking, balanced, and equally inclusive.
But with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service added, this can help move from where we are now, with corporate interests skewing govt decisions and throwing off if not blocking the checks and balance,
back to a more consistent standard of practice, especially where due process and representation has been blocked by partisan politics taking over the legislature, courts, and media.

I would like to start a process of revising my points in the OP while leaving the original beneath it for tracking purposes. Thinking I'll take each one separately with comments made thus far as a sort of sub-thread, and revise the OP as we go.

But thanks, I'll take a look at your website very soon. Some things begun this past weekend are still refusing to be tied down. lol

 

[hangover]

No, it is a myth. While Bloody Mary burned a few hundred heretics, Elizabeth had a number of her subjects burned as well. One estimate put the total number of people executed by the inquisition on all ages as around 3,000, nothing compared to the human loss at the hands of secularists in one century alone; the 20th.

ONLY three thousand, only? How does what Mary did excuse what the Catholic church did? That's like saying Hitler killed six million Jews, so Truman nuking a quarter million civilian Japanese is no big deal.

whatev

A least the Vatican apologized. Does that mean those killed have to forgive in order to get in the pearly gates? Do those that did the killing get in? The inquisition, Mary, Hitler, Truman? Or do they get recycled with Karma, reincarnated? Maybe all those nazis are reincarnated as todays African peasants. I can't think of any other reason those poor people have to suffer the way they are. And the spirit of Truman...in Fallujah? Where's the apropriate place for Hitler to learn his lesson? Whoa, that's a tough one.
Is this off topic? Sorry, can't help it. I'm getting close to checking out myself, and the possibilities are spooky.

 

[Foxfyre]

My understanding of Isonomy is based on the concepts of
* Judicial Reform for equal justice and peace
by moving from Retributive Justice toward Restorative Justice
(focus on correction and restitution instead of judgment and punishment)
* Legislative Reform based on respect for the consent of the governed
by conflict resolution (instead of conflicts of interest)
and equal protection of the laws (instead of political bullying by partisan abuse of majority-rule)
* Executive Reform based on equal law enforcement and security
by collective responsibility (instead of collective punishment) and collaborative economics between business, church, nonprofit and government groups (instead of unfair competition by abusing collective influence or corporate personhood to bypass checks and balances under the Constitution)

Dear Jim: Whatever webpage you set up to post your Centrist principles, I would like to link that on a website to promote inter-party "collaborative" politics, and bring together solutions using the best ideas from all views, people and parties, from all angles, instead of competing.

I visualize "isonomy" or "isocracy" like a soccer ball. Each person is like a point on the globe, where we are the highest, central point from our viewpoint, but we are below someone else from their position as the center of their network. Each person can thus build a network or organization around them, and these are all EQUAL on the globe. They do not compete with each other to be on top. We all serve others when they lead a good idea where they are the expert and central point person in charge; and likewise others help us where we are in charge of what we contribute best.

So this collaborative model is where I believe social, political and economic reform is heading. And we can organize these parties and affiliated organizations and networks through the media/internet and connecting by schools system, delegated by department to focus on the various solutions to economic and political problems. We can organize resources around the best solutions, and create jobs and internships to train leaders by working directly on reforms and building experience so we train govt officials before they take office, not practice or experiment on the public after they get elected!

Thanks Jim

I look forward to seeing your final statement of principles.

You may use any ideas off my webpages where I was trying to spell these out also:
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Earned Amnesty

By resolving conflicts, so that all decisions INCLUDE reflect represent and protect "all interests and views EQUALLY"
I believe this fulfills the Constitutional and ethical standards in the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe the Constitutional Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment already spell out what we need to make self-government self-checking, balanced, and equally inclusive.
But with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service added, this can help move from where we are now, with corporate interests skewing govt decisions and throwing off if not blocking the checks and balance,
back to a more consistent standard of practice, especially where due process and representation has been blocked by partisan politics taking over the legislature, courts, and media.

Represent--hear--all interests equally, yes. Protect all interests equally no. All interests are not worthy of protection nor should we protect those interests that are in conflict with the rights of others.

And whose ideas are better should work its way out in democratic elections resulting from the competition of ideas in a free market of ideas; elections.

Many things can mutate those markets of ideas into government elite controlled rubber stamps like in Venezuela, but I cam not inclined to go into that too much yet. Would rather build foundational ideas first for this un-ideology, lol.

Un-ideology is an interesting concept, actually, but I'm not sure it is a practical goal.

What is ideology anyway other than an expression of a concept or larger principle? When it is reduced to sound bites, slogans, and high minded sounding platitudes, with no real understanding or conviction behind them, it is useless and mostly divisive.

But when anchored in a specific defensible principle such as unalienable rights, and the goal is that every law, regulation, and policy is anchored in that principle, it is inevitable and inescapable.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Represent--hear--all interests equally, yes. Protect all interests equally no. All interests are not worthy of protection nor should we protect those interests that are in conflict with the rights of others.

And whose ideas are better should work its way out in democratic elections resulting from the competition of ideas in a free market of ideas; elections.

Many things can mutate those markets of ideas into government elite controlled rubber stamps like in Venezuela, but I cam not inclined to go into that too much yet. Would rather build foundational ideas first for this un-ideology, lol.

Un-ideology is an interesting concept, actually, but I'm not sure it is a practical goal.

Well, once I get some more time, we can toss it around more, but I would like to have a set of operating basic principles that are without over-extension, like we have with almost all ideologies today..... let me explain below...

What is ideology anyway other than an expression of a concept or larger principle?

To the degree that ideologies take axioms from a philosophy, like say the Enlightenment that occurred in the UK and its Scottish philosophers, and states basic precepts for its ideology, that is all well and good.

But when one goes from a set of axioms that state, for example, that we should have free trade, then internally compounds those ideas to ideological dogmas that flaunt common sense like the export of jobs and primary plant capital.

That is an over extension of an ideology from basics that are affirmed in a sense of fairness and experience in the real world to something that is based only on other principles within that ideological system, an ideological echo chamber, and may only be testable over decades after millions of lives and their livelihoods have been devastated.

And the same pattern holds in leaping from worker rights to the confiscation of the property of the wealthy, and the dehumanization of the bourgeoise under Marxism, of going from nationalistic pride to blaming Jews for defeat as under Nazism, etc.

Fresh ideologies that keep to the observable basics and responses to them I think valid and fair, but to go and build solely within that ideological framework not accepting ideas from outside of itself, that is irrational though bearing a semblance to rationality. To be rational, one would still use relevant ideas from outside the ideology in question to test and validate any further principles developed.

When one takes basic rights to free use of ones property and extends it to the point that one rebukes the government for acting on the behalf of the general public to halt damage to the environment we all live in, that is over extension of the ideology and a reduction in its usefulness, IMO.

Why not just have a set of basic ideas that incorporate the best of the various ideologies without then progressing via an internal echo chamber into virtually untestable dogmas that can ruin the lives of millions? That do not accept the value of compromise but only the dogmatic concession of all opposition?

When it is reduced to sound bites, slogans, and high minded sounding platitudes, with no real understanding or conviction behind them, it is useless and mostly divisive.

Ideas can only speak to a person to the extent that their life experience has made them able to comprehend the matter fully. I could talk till I drop to the floor with exhaustion about the value of saving money, but to some children it is an utter waste of time if they have never been without money and the difficulties that brings.

One cannot see some things as more than trite if one doesn't first perceive the horrors that come from their want. For example, to talk of the infinite value of human life, that may seem trite to some, but to some who have lost their own children, seen friends die, read of millions that have died due to bad policies and laws, then it seems not so trite.

But when anchored in a specific defensible principle such as unalienable rights, and the goal is that every law, regulation, and policy is anchored in that principle, it is inevitable and inescapable.

But what is the principle of unalienable rights based on? What axiomatic Truths does one have to accept before the concept of unalienable rights naturally flow as an obvious truth?

That is the level at which I would like to keep these things and leave room for further action giving most of our fellow human beings credit for being rational and beneficient until they demonstrate themselves to be otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

And whose ideas are better should work its way out in democratic elections resulting from the competition of ideas in a free market of ideas; elections.

Many things can mutate those markets of ideas into government elite controlled rubber stamps like in Venezuela, but I cam not inclined to go into that too much yet. Would rather build foundational ideas first for this un-ideology, lol.

Un-ideology is an interesting concept, actually, but I'm not sure it is a practical goal.

Well, once I get some more time, we can toss it around more, but I would like to have a set of operating basic principles that are without over-extension, like we have with almost all ideologies today..... let me explain below...



To the degree that ideologies take axioms from a philosophy, like say the Enlightenment that occurred in the UK and its Scottish philosophers, and states basic precepts for its ideology, that is all well and good.

But when one goes from a set of axioms that state, for example, that we should have free trade, then internally compounds those ideas to ideological dogmas that flaunt common sense like the export of jobs and primary plant capital.

That is an over extension of an ideology from basics that are affirmed in a sense of fairness and experience in the real world to something that is based only on other principles within that ideological system, an ideological echo chamber, and may only be testable over decades after millions of lives and their livelihoods have been devastated.

And the same pattern holds in leaping from worker rights to the confiscation of the property of the wealthy, and the dehumanization of the bourgeoise under Marxism, of going from nationalistic pride to blaming Jews for defeat as under Nazism, etc.

Fresh ideologies that keep to the observable basics and responses to them I think valid and fair, but to go and build solely within that ideological framework not accepting ideas from outside of itself, that is irrational though bearing a semblance to rationality. To be rational, one would still use relevant ideas from outside the ideology in question to test and validate any further principles developed.

When one takes basic rights to free use of ones property and extends it to the point that one rebukes the government for acting on the behalf of the general public to halt damage to the environment we all live in, that is over extension of the ideology and a reduction in its usefulness, IMO.

Why not just have a set of basic ideas that incorporate the best of the various ideologies without then progressing via an internal echo chamber into virtually untestable dogmas that can ruin the lives of millions? That do not accept the value of compromise but only the dogmatic concession of all opposition?

When it is reduced to sound bites, slogans, and high minded sounding platitudes, with no real understanding or conviction behind them, it is useless and mostly divisive.

Ideas can only speak to a person to the extent that their life experience has made them able to comprehend the matter fully. I could talk till I drop to the floor with exhaustion about the value of saving money, but to some children it is an utter waste of time if they have never been without money and the difficulties that brings.

One cannot see some things as more than trite if one doesn't first perceive the horrors that come from their want. For example, to talk of the infinite value of human life, that may seem trite to some, but to some who have lost their own children, seen friends die, read of millions that have died due to bad policies and laws, then it seems not so trite.

But when anchored in a specific defensible principle such as unalienable rights, and the goal is that every law, regulation, and policy is anchored in that principle, it is inevitable and inescapable.

But what is the principle of unalienable rights based on? What axiomatic Truths does one have to accept before the concept of unalienable rights naturally flow as an obvious truth?

That is the level at which I would like to keep these things and leave room for further action giving most of our fellow human beings credit for being rational and beneficient until they demonstrate themselves to be otherwise.

The principle of unalienable rights is grounded in the concept that rights are God given and exist prior to formal government. It is the principle that liberty can exist only when people can be who and what they are with impunity short of infringement on the rights of others. It is the right to think, to believe, to profess, to imagine, to envision, to breathe. The Declaration of Independence described it as, among other things, as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution condensed that into 'blessings of liberty'.

And it is the concept that an unalienable right is whatever we think, say, want, or do that requires no participation or contribution by any other.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The principle of unalienable rights is grounded in the concept that rights are God given and exist prior to formal government. It is the principle that liberty can exist only when people can be who and what they are with impunity short of infringement on the rights of others. It is the right to think, to believe, to profess, to imagine, to envision, to breathe. The Declaration of Independence described it as, among other things, as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution condensed that into 'blessings of liberty'.

And it is the concept that an unalienable right is whatever we think, say, want, or do that requires no participation or contribution by any other.

And what if the population has a large segment who does not believe in a Creator? Or that Fate determines what happens to us and what we do is irrelevant?

Could we establish a system of thinking about political/legal ideas that does not make an appeal to a Creator?

I think it is plausible, though I have talked to a number of reasonable atheists on the topic, they don't usually go much further than the 'one shouldn't harm one's neighbor' argument which is too much a matter of convenience, IMO.