Killing America Slowly

[fallenarch]

Fallenarch, I think your position is clear. Everything the book says is crap, it's a complete nonsense, Utopian theory, and will never work. The example I gave about Israel should not be taken literally which I warned about, and I am getting a sense you are frustrated with this topic, and are very short of name calling. There is nothing really productive in our interaction any longer. I anticipated many responses filled with doubts, criticism, and antipathy. So, no surprise to me. I tried my best to answer every concern you had, and I am thankful that you did bring a number of valid concerns. This only prepares me better for future audiences, and that's how I take it. I have no choice, but to move on and look for people who will share my ideas. That's what a person who believes in himself does.

You are now putting words in my mouth. What you sense as my being "very near name calling" is in fact my giving up on you. I have been trying to help you see that your idea is not completely thought through, so I have been trying to get you to stop and really think about a couple obvious issues that you don't have a good answers for. How can you be so arrogant as to propose fundamentally changing our system of government without really understanding how it was designed and how it has evolved to this point for both good and bad (BTW: yes I am assuming you are a bit weak on American history, but this is based on your comments and your book being almost entirely recent events)? We have crits here in our office all the time. People bring in a neat idea and they get angry when you tell them that they haven't figured out how to make it work. If you want to be successful at something you need to be able to figure out how to make it work and not just hope you are lucky enough to have things go your way. If you really care about the country you will want to be sure that your solution is the best one, and that the consequences of your system will be constructive.

I am very up to date on technology, my job is to evaluate design technology for our company. I don't know how old you are but I have lived through many "new" things that were going to change the world and didn't in my 30 years in the A/E industry. On the other hand I am very progressive about things that really can work.

The fundamental problem with your idea is that it is fixing the wrong thing and creating a potentially lethal monster. The problem is that people don't vote because they expect a direct, immediate pay-off for their vote. Further, what drives most to the polls are issues that have nothing to do with improving their life. Like I said before, people vote their prejudices, not their interests. The big reason for this is big money & polititians preying on people's weaknesses. Basically pitting people against each other so they won't notice us stealing them blind. CAP doesn't even address these fundamental problems. In fact, it will amplify the problem as it gives more power to the minority of the people actually voting.

For me, saying that the sky is falling and there is no solution except to short circuit the system and resort to mob rule is part of the very problem I'm talking about: which is trying to influence the population by playing to their human weaknesses. Our founders played to the people's strengths, that's what has made this country strong for 200+ years. I'm am not saying that educating the people and getting them to understand that the corporatists want to steal this country from them will be easy, but that is the true fight if the goal is to make things better.

 

[IG.]

fallenarch, our debate became unproductive. You did come close to name calling - out of anger, or frustration. I don't want to expand on that, but I know when I sense it. You are repeating things which you read elsewhere, but they are not connected logically - you simply state them. On the other hand, I am impartial to anyone's opinion and look at things objectively regardless whether it's a popular opinion or not. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of the entire world disagreeing with me, but if one person gives me a valid reasoning, it will get me thinking. What you call arrogance, I call independent thinking. I am not angry with you because I anticipated your reaction, and see a bigger purpose in my actions. People don't necessarily vote because of the reasons you mentioned, and I already explained why. This is oversimplification. Saying that corporatists want to steal this country points to the problem, but does not address the root cause of it. It would be naive to attempt to solve it without understanding it.

If you are involved in technical aspect of full life cycle of software development, I am surprised you don't see the technical simplicity of CAP, however I do recognize the usual challenge of putting something like this in production environment - still very achievable.

You seem to be knowledgeable in History, definitely more than I am, however this is a poor argument as it is too general to be conclusive. Stating that because our founding fathers did something so they must have known better is also a poor argument as it is inconclusive.

I will give it another shot because I believe that ultimately you are sincerely frustrated with what is going on with this country as I am, and as so many other people are. We just have a difference of opinion on how to deal with it. I will start with the point which you seem to gravitate towards, and the point I also agree with, that corporations have too much influence on the governments and this in turn messing things up for our country as the country starts benefiting corporations and not people. I will present something that is not in the book, however it addresses the core fundamental reason why this is happening. I'd be curious to see your reaction.

Consider an organizational entity such a family, an organization, a business, a company, a corporation, or a government. Every one of them (or most every entity) is governed by autocratic type of control. Parents decide family matters, although considering input from other family members. Organization's president (or a board) sets direct commands to lower ranking managers, and so on. Business employees follow orders from a business owner. Every company follows directives from it's president and all the way down to regular employees. Same is true for every corporation, and for every government entity. It is hard to dispute that autocracy is the order of things within those entities. This is not a bad thing. This is actually a good thing because only through autocracy things get done and the discipline is enforced.

Most of these organizational entities form the fabric of our society. How come that those entities, while being autocratic inside, do so many good things for society in general, and are not getting our of control? This is because of the feedback loop which creates a continuous dependency of these organizational entities on the outside world. A family pursues long term goals to benefit itself and have a good standing in society. An organization benefits our society in one way or another, and if the society is not satisfied, the head of an organization is informed and donations, financial support, or legal action may affect such organization. A business not satisfying its customers will fail, a business owner knows it, and tries to do best to make customers happy. Poor products/services will affect a company's bottom line, which makes a company to constantly keep its products/services on par with competition. Same is true with corporations, however in part only, and I will explain this shortly. But what about the feedback loop with a government entity? There isn't one. At least, not to a degree other organizational entities are subjected to. Same is partially true for large corporations. Why? They became so big that the feedback loop became very weak. Simply put, they no longer care about the outcome of their actions because they are so powerful.

Smaller organizational entities are not doing so many useful things for society because they are such nice, kind, and giving people. They are doing it because they have no other choice. If you break such feedback loop in an imaginary experiment, our society will collapse as anything and everything useful these organizational entities contribute to our society will deteriorate very quickly. Why? Such is human nature.

Weak feedback loop is the primary reason Governmental entities gradually evolve uncontrollably, and in the direction as they see fit. Same is true for large corporations. It is the weak feedback loop which CAP is addressing by making it a lot stronger. That is it.

It is only natural for powerful entities to cooperate in order to pursue their agendas. This is the real reason corporations are allowed to influence governments so much, no matter how it's called. Of course, this only promotes corruption and bribery within governments. And again, CAP would greatly diminish if not eliminate this negative effect.

 

[fallenarch]

fallenarch, our debate became unproductive. You did come close to name calling - out of anger, or frustration. I don't want to expand on that, but I know when I sense it. You are repeating things which you read elsewhere, but they are not connected logically - you simply state them. On the other hand, I am impartial to anyone's opinion and look at things objectively regardless whether it's a popular opinion or not. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of the entire world disagreeing with me, but if one person gives me a valid reasoning, it will get me thinking. What you call arrogance, I call independent thinking. I am not angry with you because I anticipated your reaction, and see a bigger purpose in my actions. People don't necessarily vote because of the reasons you mentioned, and I already explained why. This is oversimplification. Saying that corporatists want to steal this country points to the problem, but does not address the root cause of it. It would be naive to attempt to solve it without understanding it.

IG. you do not sense anger on my part, I am giving up on you. I have raised some obvious problems with your proposal and you simple refuse to acknowledge or address them. Specifically, the CAP system as proposed is a democratic system which was specifically avoided by our founders to avoid mob rule and protect the individual. Also, you have to get the very people who are destroying the system (politicians) to adopt your system and the same apathetic voters (driven by prejudices, not their own interests) to participate in it. You have yet to respond to these simple, obvious issues (brought up by most on this thread BTW)- that's why I keep asking them. What I call arrogance is to ignore all of the good thinking that has been done in this area of political science. You should not confuse independent thinking (understanding the accepted body of knowledge and working outside of it) with ignorant thinking (thinking with a lack of knowledge). In my experience the independent thinker is often the most committed to understanding history and where it went right or wrong, a necessary step if one is to think outside of this box.

If you are involved in technical aspect of full life cycle of software development, I am surprised you don't see the technical simplicity of CAP, however I do recognize the usual challenge of putting something like this in production environment - still very achievable.

I could personally write the software in C in a couple of days, I spent about 9 years writing CAD software early in my career. But things aren't that simple. There is legislation to write, specifications to agree on, fair procurement standards to follow (bidding) and an endless line of B.S. to wade through prior to even sitting down to write the software. Here is a specific dilemma for you: How do you write open source code (it was a big mistake to let the contractor keep the source code private on the electronic voting machines) but still have it secure?


You seem to be knowledgeable in History, definitely more than I am, however this is a poor argument as it is too general to be conclusive. Stating that because our founding fathers did something so they must have known better is also a poor argument as it is inconclusive.

How do you know it's a poor argument if you are ignorant of it? Note also that ignorant is a lack of knowledge, stupid is the inability to understand. So ignorant is not intended as a put down, as it only means that I think you need to consider more things.

I will give it another shot because I believe that ultimately you are sincerely frustrated with what is going on with this country as I am, and as so many other people are. We just have a difference of opinion on how to deal with it. I will start with the point which you seem to gravitate towards, and the point I also agree with, that corporations have too much influence on the governments and this in turn messing things up for our country as the country starts benefiting corporations and not people. I will present something that is not in the book, however it addresses the core fundamental reason why this is happening. I'd be curious to see your reaction.

Consider an organizational entity such a family, an organization, a business, a company, a corporation, or a government. Every one of them (or most every entity) is governed by autocratic type of control. Parents decide family matters, although considering input from other family members. Organization's president (or a board) sets direct commands to lower ranking managers, and so on. Business employees follow orders from a business owner. Every company follows directives from it's president and all the way down to regular employees. Same is true for every corporation, and for every government entity. It is hard to dispute that autocracy is the order of things within those entities. This is not a bad thing. This is actually a good thing because only through autocracy things get done and the discipline is enforced.

Most of these organizational entities form the fabric of our society. How come that those entities, while being autocratic inside, do so many good things for society in general, and are not getting our of control? This is because of the feedback loop which creates a continuous dependency of these organizational entities on the outside world. A family pursues long term goals to benefit itself and have a good standing in society. An organization benefits our society in one way or another, and if the society is not satisfied, the head of an organization is informed and donations, financial support, or legal action may affect such organization. A business not satisfying its customers will fail, a business owner knows it, and tries to do best to make customers happy. Poor products/services will affect a company's bottom line, which makes a company to constantly keep its products/services on par with competition. Same is true with corporations, however in part only, and I will explain this shortly. But what about the feedback loop with a government entity? There isn't one. At least, not to a degree other organizational entities are subjected to. Same is partially true for large corporations. Why? They became so big that the feedback loop became very weak. Simply put, they no longer care about the outcome of their actions because they are so powerful.

Most large corporations are in fact democratic. The CEO answers to the stock holders. While the CEO is often the major stock holder, the stock holders can call a no confidence vote at any time. You may not be aware but corporations have a very poor history of doing big things or looking out for the people in general. Typically stock holders have little interest in what a business does, only in how much money it makes. So many decisions are short sided and based on greed. Look at accidents like the oil spill in the Gulf, or the safety recalls on drugs and cars, or the 80% profits Healthcare companies were making. Anyone who trusts a company to guard their interests over the government is just ignorant of the incentives that drive corporations. I'm not sure you have hands on experience with companies but I do, corporations are at necessary leaches on society.

You cannot have a family when incomes slip too low. With 2 parents working, there is no time to do the things that families do, which is prepare new citizens to take on constructive roles in society. Look at income disparities in companies - astonishing.


Smaller organizational entities are not doing so many useful things for society because they are such nice, kind, and giving people. They are doing it because they have no other choice. If you break such feedback loop in an imaginary experiment, our society will collapse as anything and everything useful these organizational entities contribute to our society will deteriorate very quickly. Why? Such is human nature.

The healthcare industry is a great example of how a corporation can force customers to buy stuff that they don't want and is not in their interests. Don't like you cable company? Your options are to go buy a set of rabbit ears in most places.

Weak feedback loop is the primary reason Governmental entities gradually evolve uncontrollably, and in the direction as they see fit. Same is true for large corporations. It is the weak feedback loop which CAP is addressing by making it a lot stronger. That is it.

You are mistaken if you think the people in control of the government don't know what the people want. They spend millions in research every month to know exactly what we are thinking. But rather than use this knowledge base to do the people's will, they are using it against us to get what corporations want while convincing people it's someone else causing the problem. Both of my brother in laws worked for congressman. I worked on campaigns for 2 congressman and a senator. I have seen how the machine works. It is safe to say that government works great for 5% of the population.

It is only natural for powerful entities to cooperate in order to pursue their agendas. This is the real reason corporations are allowed to influence governments so much, no matter how it's called. Of course, this only promotes corruption and bribery within governments. And again, CAP would greatly diminish if not eliminate this negative effect.

I think it's time for other posters to get into this conversation. Take care my friend.

 

[IG.]

Fallenarch, I completely agree with your last statement. Would love to see other people getting involved. I gave you answers to many of your questions, but somehow you seem to overlook some of those answers, or feel they are not satisfactory. For example, you are saying:

"Specifically, the CAP system as proposed is a democratic system which was specifically avoided by our founders to avoid mob rule and protect the individual."

I gave you 5 reasons/factors why it is not - right here in this thread. You didn't dispute those 5 reasons/factors, even after I proposed for you to possibly alter and fine tune them. I do not want a rule by majority any more than you do, and completely recognize the value of a Republic and would never want to change that.

Take care my friend, too. But don't go too far. You never know what the future might bring. I do appreciate your criticism because quite often people blindly agree, and it is really hard to find a person with a critical attitude. This particular problem we are dealing with needs all the critical eyes we can get. You already brought up many valid concerns, and in this I see a significant value of our back-and-forth conversation. Thank you for that.

 

[fallenarch]

I will admit my answers have been redundant. I usually answer over hours or days with the computer on the site while I'm doing other things. This why both my typing is terrible and I can repeat myself. I will give it one last look over and in the interest of being constructive post a final opinion of this idea. Considering all the work you have done i think i owe you that. Hopefully I can do it tonight.

 

[IG.]

I appreciate that, and look forward to your reply.

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

Checking in. Disappointed to see no new posters, but very glad to see that Fallenarch and IG have found a more constructive manner of exchange! Both make great observations and arguments. This is how collaborations work - point and counterpoint, often resulting in a greater composition, owed to the synergy of the exchange. Keep it up!

And anyone else reading...join in!

 

[IG.]

A great point, MelodicMetalGod, and I truly appreciate it - because it is more important than any topic, issue, or a problem we are discussing.

 

[IG.]

I was watching TV yesterday - investigations related to the IRS scandal. IRS "conveniently" lost critical emails due to a "computer crash" and the follow up "destruction" of the hard drive as part of their "procedure" to deal with crashed drives. Those were emails which could implicate the White House, Louis Lerner, and others. No one buys this "dog ate my homework" reason. However, nothing practical can be done. Both, the IRS and the White House, are stonewalling the investigation. If you gave similar excuse to the IRS during an audit, they would laugh at you, and would go after you.

The reason this is happening because you, individually or collectively with others, do not have real control over your governments, therefore they are getting away with things like that. At the same time they do have a good deal of control over you, and that is why you won't get away giving a similar excuse during a IRS audit or in many similar circumstances when you are begging a government for something. I am sure everyone can come up with more examples.

Things like that would not be happening if CAP was implemented, because CAP addresses the underlying fundamental reason of why this and so many other things are happening - absence of people's full and continuous control over their governments. Understanding and accepting this underlying reason can also unite all of us.

It is my prediction that things will continue to deteriorate, the country and Congress will get more divided, the arguing will become more vicious. However, nothing practical will be accomplished as the country continues to slide into a further developing crisis. Welcome to the 21st century America. It would be a good time to point out a funny, coincidental, and should-not-be-taken-seriously observation: acronym "US" is part of another acronym "USSR", and can gradually become one.

 

[fallenarch]

I.G. – I restarted my review from this entry, which I believe summarizes your concept. I put my issues here in this entry, and also included other’s comments.
There are some fundamental questions about your idea and I don’t feel your answers have been responsive to.


MelodicMetalGod asked: If implementing CAP requires the approval of the current system/politicians and the current system/politicians are corrupt, then why would the current system politicians approve CAP?
You answered: You are absolutely right that existing system/politicians would never approve CAP. As the book explains, here is how it will happen. Absence of full and continuous control of people over their governments is the core fundamental reason our governments deteriorate in so many ways. CAP is the only way to address this fundamental flaw. Because this is such a fundamental and simple notion, most people would agree with it regardless of their political affiliation or financial status. Therefore, this could be the only issue of every future election, in turn leading to election of those politicians who will vote for CAP. Needless to say, this will bring into public service a different breed of politicians.

My Thoughts: You basically answer this fundamental question with “the people will come together to force politicians to adopt this”. If the people would vote they would already have this power. I don’t feel you have an answer for the question of how you get people to care about the country and express it through the political system, much less have the determination over years of votes to make something like CAP happen. For example, most people agree with everything Obamacare does, but they still don’t like Obamacare. If you think the voters are rational, you are being naive. For me, this is SHOW STOPPER #1.

This is another response to MelodicMetalGod, which is in post #17:

MelodicMetalGod: 3) People aren’t perfect in effort or morality or integrity. Implementation of CAP will take a LOT of people. Some of them will be bound to be looking for a way to manipulate the system and others will be hired by “the system” to specifically seek out way to manipulate the system.

You answered: Let them try, and end up in prison. It is a valid concern, but supported by a very general statement. I can only reiterate: it is theoretically impossible to alter data which will go unnoticed. Try to come up with a single scenario how this could be accomplished.
My Thoughts: You are again unresponsive. This is not a “general statement”, it’s a good, to the point question that you have not answered other than to dismiss it as unimportant. Control over voter data is a big deal and there are people that will spend a lot of money to get into your system legally or otherwise.

This is another MelodicMetalGod question that I felt you were unresponsive to:

MelodicMetalGod: 4) Banks and ISP’s are in it for the money. Being entrusted to maintain CAP would make them a primary target for “the system”. Since Banks are ISP’s are made up of people, “the system” will likely find takers. Thus, there is no guarantee that Banks or ISP’s will serve the spirit of CAP.

You answered: Again, general statement suggesting that nothing can be implemented at all. Please point out how a bank or an ISP would take advantage of it, or how an outsider would target the system.
My Thoughts: MelodicMetalGod was simply pointing out that trusting the banks for anything has been absolutely proven to be a bad idea. Your response is asking MMG to lead you through the issues of banks & ISP’s. This is your idea, the question was clear and on point. Are you aware the banks looted the country of nearly 3 trillion dollars and only one guy ever did time (for a minor insider trading charge)?

Jinkster Added:

Jinkster: What is happening to our nation (and others) is prophecy being fulfilled and man's best thinking cannot reverse the inevitable.
My Thoughts: Don’t know what to make of this. However, with all due respect I can’t buy much of this position.

Ok, now I will hit these line by line:

This thread is devoted to the discussion of the book “Killing America Slowly” published chapter by chapter in this separate thread (posts #12, #19, #29, #30, #37, #44, then every post). You don't have to buy the book.

We all keep complaining about our governments, seemingly unable to do anything productive. Years go by, and things are only getting worse. But here is a solution – right in front of you, nicely presented in a book which will only take a couple of hours to read. Don't look for excuses if you are really concerned about where The United States is heading.

If you've read the book, feel free to bring up your arguments, comments, opinions, and other feedback.

Most of us are frustrated with our federal, state, and local governments, however unable to do anything practical about it. The book presents not just a solution, but the only possible solution which is justifiable, practical, achievable, incremental, and addresses the root cause of our problems with the governments.


Disagree. My way is the only way is always a wrong statement. I have only general ideas because I was not inspired to write a book like you.

The book is engaging, entertaining, and challenges the reader. It's logic is rather straightforward.

1. Introducing the definition of full control.
Agreed.

2. Introducing quantifiable measure of control. Both definitions remove any ambiguity when analyzing control of one entity by another.
Agreed.

3. Based on 1 and 2, people have very little control over their governments – despite common belief that they do. At the same time, these same governments have a great deal of control over its people, who are mostly unaware of it.
I think we have a fundamental disconnect here. I believe that we the people have the power but don’t use it. I believe this can happen and there are people working on this.

If you look at the polls it appears the people are on to it too. Neither R’s or D’s are polling well. Your position seems to be that the system cannot be fixed and it needs a new approach. Fair enough but I don’t see this, nor do I feel that you have the silver bullet. Again, IMHO.

4. Governments consist of humans who predictably and inevitably grow corrupt, inefficient, lazy, power hungry, and many other things - when there is little control, which is the case. Such is human nature, and the entire history of humans is riddled with it. This is the root cause of our problems with our governments.


This one is complicated. I agree that people tend toward corruption. However the other side of this is that attempts to control corruption have never worked, and usually lead to more corruption. You will say this is too general, but I didn’t want to write a book you did.

5. It is impossible to change human nature, but it is possible to give people full and continuous control over their governments by implementing Continuous Approval Process - CAP. Double checking with the definition of full control confirms that CAP gives people full and continuous control over their governments, effectively creating an amazing virtual oversight agency – putting CAP on the government, so to speak.

6. Because CAP addresses such fundamental root cause, most people are likely to agree - regardless of their political affiliation or financial status, which in turn makes implementing CAP achievable.

Probably the main thing said in this thread is that CAP implementation requires the people who currently already have the power to control the government and give it away will suddenly care and rise up to implement CAP, this just doesn’t seem practical. Why not just use the power of the vote that you can start exercising in the very next election? If people voted strategically, they would control government.

7. Once most people agree that implementing CAP is the ultimate solution, every election of federal, state, and local officials focuses on this one issue only. Thus, only those public officials are elected who promise to support CAP.

Let’s do a poll right here with the following questions. I think this would have to be considered your “home crowd” on government reform. I’m sort of interested in the results of this myself. These are the questions:

• I think CAP is a good idea and I support its implementation.
• I support Cap and will work for its implementation.
• I think the idea has merit but needs some refining.
• I would like to hold government’s feet to the fire, but feel CAP will have un-intended consequences.
• I think CAP is a bad idea and will not fix government.

8. As a result, The United States Constitution is eventually amended making CAP a law.

9. Technical implementation of CAP follows.

10. New breed of elected public officials and politicians, being continuously under CAP, brings our governments back to sanity over time, making them efficient, reducing spending, and finally truly working for the people.

If you read the book, and disagree with something, please keep in mind the following prior to presenting your argument. You have to either disprove individual items above, or the logic which ties them together. Anything else would be of little use as it would have no bearing on the outcome.

As I have said before I am not interested in writing a book about this issue. But if you want CAP to work you need to take people’s issues, analyze them and then evolve your concept. As I see it these are the difficult issues you need better answers for:

• How are you going to get politicians and big business to hand over control of the USA?
• How are you going to get people to push this issue?
• If you can get people to push CAP, then why can’t just get them to vote strategically and not have to monkey with the fundamental system?
• What are the consequences of this power shift to the people?

You may find a flaw, but wouldn't you rather have the attitude of helping figuring out how to overcome it than use it as an excuse to discard the entire approach? It is impossible for one person to get every detail right. I truly believe that problems of such magnitude can be solved only through a collective effort.

So what have you learned from this process and what would you change about CAP?

If you've read the book, and agree with the proposed approach – what are you waiting for? Spread the word. Be the spark which will ignite the firestorm of long term positive changes in this country. There is no need to attend a demonstration, join a political party, or making a monetary contribution.

If you haven't read the book and doubting whether it really contains a solution, I have to ask you something. Do you really think that a solution will come from the government itself? Laughable. Maybe from a politician? No politician is capable of changing governmental machine and its culture. Maybe from a new political party? As people are getting more divided, the fragmentation of political forces increases. No political fraction will become mainstream.

Note that you have not figured this out either, as you are saying political officials will be elected who will be different and they will implement CAP. That’s sort of the same thing as what you yourself are calling laughable.

There are only two possible scenarios awaiting The United States. In a natural scenario, the country will get more divided, dragging along until real economic/financial/political/humanitarian crisis of magnitude occurs which will affect most everyone and on a very personal level. Many will not survive. It will be accompanied by a political blame game, and as usually will provide a great material to various news outlets who will take advantage of your frustration by keeping your eyeballs on the screen while attracting more advertising dollars. Because the underlying fundamental reasons will not be addressed, the country will come full circle and yet another crisis will occur over time.

The facts are that the country is less divided than ever. Democratic Party ideas hold nearly ¾% of every major demographic other than white males and older white females. I know with this crowd the minute I say this they go into AWM mode but those are the facts. The country has rarely been so together. It’s a single minority that has decided that if they don’t get their way they are going to crash the entire system. That is just the facts guys, and if you are going to look at solutions with the interest of making things better you have to acknowledge it.

A more intelligent approach is to understand and address the root cause of the problem, and thus avoid multiple crises. It is only people like you who are capable of doing that. Don't sell yourself short thinking you don't have the power to change things. The solution is right in front of you. If ignored, you will still be complaining about the government years from now, but you will be a lot poorer, less safe, less happy, and more frustrated.


I don’t think CAP addresses a root cause. Even when we have full, continuous control of government we will still have a divided country, and will not be able to use the power of CAP. Look at the polls again, the country is typically equally divided on most all major issues.

I invite you to read the book if you didn't have a chance to do so. It is your life and it is your responsibility to figure out your future. Ignored problems only pile up, grow, and come back at you stronger, but they never go away. What's the worst that can happen? You may disagree with what you read, but I guarantee you it will get you thinking. You are likely to agree with many things in the book.

Anything truly new seems strange. At first, it is ridiculed. After a while, it is accepted. Over time, it becomes self-obvious. It is only through thinking, analysis, and understanding one can come to a conclusion whether something makes sense, or not. Case in point, the invention of computer mouse. At the time, it was ridiculed by all those smart engineers, and hadn't been accepted. Many years later, it became a part of every computer, and anyone would laugh if a computer didn't have a mouse.

The United States is a relatively young country built on great principles of a Democratic Republic, but it's not immune to diseases inherent to democracies. The future of this country is truly in your hands. It's up to you whether to let it transform into something you will not recognize years from now as it is happening with other democracies, or bring it back to sanity – once and for all.

I could go on and on but I am out of time and who would read it anyway? This is something that needs to be debated in a room with good representatives from many stakeholders. Trying to do something like this usually requires an evangelist and a facilitator more than a rational thinker!

 

[IG.]

Hey, fallenarch, that took a lot of time and effort, and I truly appreciate your precision and to the point arguments. I will try to be as short as possible and will refrain from re-quoting, but rather will try to just focus on the issues you brought up.

A concern why would newly elected politicians vote for CAP. I won't repeat what I said, but I think I can see where the misunderstanding is coming from. There is a difference between a) general promises to follow the will of the people and then finding excuses and reasons to not exactly do what was promised, and b) backing off one specific promised action - voting for CAP. That's where voters have the power to call such elected official a crook and recall him/her via currently available means. A politician who promises to vote for CAP would pretty much understand such scenario. So, a potential politician who does not want to vote for CAP is unlikely to go forward with the campaign, and then suddenly change the opinion so obnoxiously. As a result, it is a lot more likely that only a politician who truly supports CAP would go forward with the campaign, and be elected. In short, there is zero wiggle room to change the position and still save the face. Such approach essentially puts a politician in the corner with no way out. That's the clever part of this approach.

Side point, no matter what people disagree with now they have no means to easily voice their opinion and they have no means to easily enforce any actions. I don't think that most people agree with what Obamacare does, however so many are sitting on the sidelines exactly because there are no means to do anything. CAP would provide such means. Currently, there is nowhere people can vote except once every 4 years for the candidate they dislike less, or like more.

A valid concern that some people, banks/ISPs, or the government will attempt to manipulate CAP to their advantage. Again, I won't repeat what I said, but will try to alleviate your doubts. I offered a very particular design of the system with no loose ends. I also addressed a few specific scenarios in the book and in this thread, and explained what would happen if someone tries to do this or that. I think some of that was overlooked. However, the devil is in the detail, and one has to carefully model in their head how such system would work based on the offered description, and then try to model an attempt to affect such system in a negative way and see whether it is possible. Additionally to that, multiple audits of the design and implementation by my multiple parties, maybe even consisting of people like you, will be performed. I feel that arguments sometimes were too general and apply to pretty much any system, and sounded like nothing at all can be accomplished. I realize that design and implementation is not without its challenges, but believe this is all achievable. I claim that the proposed design cannot be hacked. In order to disprove it, one has to come up with a scenario which will break such system. But even if you will, we should utilize such finding as a means to strengthen the proposed system, and not as a means to discard it.

"My way is the only way". Not trying to be arrogant. However, there is one fundamental reason why our governments or other democratic governments behave the way they do. CAP addresses that reason.

You believe that we the people already have power to change things, we just don't use that power. Item 3 is a simple logical conclusion from items 1 and 2, which you agree with. It only appears that people do have power, and this is the notion maintained by politicians. In reality, why almost every one of us feels powerless and frustrated? Because this is an illusion. In reality, we have very little power over governments.

Attempts to control corruption were not successful. A valid concern, however in this case, we are not asking the government itself to fight corruption - this would be a futile attempt. We are addressing the root cause of corruption by greatly strengthening currently almost non-existent feedback loop - namely, by introducing CAP. This makes the people-governments system self regulating. Such feedback loop, which I mentioned earlier, is the only mechanism currently in place which prevents other businesses and companies from deteriorating and getting corrupt to a degree prevalent with our governments.

Item 6. No, people don't have the power to do much. Thinking they do is a misconception. This was shown in items 1, 2, and 3. It is important to explain that, and then people will realize that CAP needs to close this gap. Then we can argue about issues, and vote on a different level.

I like the idea of a poll, and will do it shortly. However, the results may be misleading because if someone just scanned through the book/thread and didn't grasp the proposed approach to a good deal of detail, there would be a natural reaction to dismiss it. So, such poll results may be more indicative of how many people didn't get it and not how many people think it's a bad idea after they comprehended all information.

How are you going to get politicians and big business to hand over control of the USA? Explained above.

How are you going to get people to push this issue? Get united on this one issue only.

If you can get people to push CAP, then why can’t just get them to vote strategically and not have to monkey with the fundamental system? CAP addresses a fundamental problem. Once this problem is solved, we would be arguing about real issues on a different level, without political nonsense present today. People cannot vote on strategical issues directly, however they will be able to ensure that politicians of the future do it in a way which makes sense to the people.

What are the consequences of this power shift to the people? As explained in the book, with power comes responsibility. There is simply no way to avoid this. The sooner we pass through this phase the better. This will be something new to us.

So what have you learned from this process and what would you change about CAP? Anything and everything. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that the final implementation will be 90% different. I truly believe that this should be the product of a collective effort. The proposed approach is simply the first iteration.

Note that you have not figured this out either, as you are saying political officials will be elected who will be different and they will implement CAP. That’s sort of the same thing as what you yourself are calling laughable. I explained above how a future elected official will be "cornered" and will have no choice but vote for CAP.

The facts are that the country is less divided than ever. Democratic Party ideas hold nearly ¾% of every major demographic other than white males and older white females. I know with this crowd the minute I say this they go into AWM mode but those are the facts. The country has rarely been so together. It’s a single minority that has decided that if they don’t get their way they are going to crash the entire system. That is just the facts guys, and if you are going to look at solutions with the interest of making things better you have to acknowledge it. Many of those people support Democratic party not because they like it so much, but because they dislike it less than the Republican party. When offered an alternative view, many of these people may agree. On the other hand, we are near the point of no return, and if so many people are bribed by the government they always form a majority, and if this is the case we all are going down until a crisis changes things. Because no one can actually measure and say for sure that we are past the point of no return, I say let's give it a shot.

I don’t think CAP addresses a root cause. Even when we have full, continuous control of government we will still have a divided country, and will not be able to use the power of CAP. Look at the polls again, the country is typically equally divided on most all major issues. A valid concern, however it assumes that people never change their opinion. Don't look at a few popular hot topics. There is a lot more going within our governments like ineffectiveness, corruption, poor decision making. Redistribution of income done by the government on such enormous scale is not sustainable. I realize that those who benefit don't care where the money comes from and will support their respective politicians, but I think their opinion may change when so many of others will rise.

 

[IG.]

fallenarch, per your good suggestion, I posted a poll in this thread.

 

[fallenarch]

A senator once told me that "we lie to people because they demand that we lie". I don't hob-nob with senators (I paid @250 bucks to talk to this one) but this is the real problem. We have to wake people up. Obviously we are not going to agree on this fundamental point, but if you become a student of this countries politics I think you will not have the opinions you do now.

I'm burned out on this one brother, but best of luck to you.

 

[IG.]

I don't blame you fallenarch, and once again I applaud and appreciate your thoughtful and time consuming participation. I wouldn't be surprised our paths will cross in the future.

While I don't know the circumstances of your interaction with the senator you mentioned, I would speculate that he was more concerned with preserving his political position/career than with truly serving the country, which sometimes means a senator tells a hard truth even at the risk of his career/political position, and stands by it. I really believe it would be possible to have such politicians in the future. Most of today's politicians are really career politicians. The kind of people who truly want to serve their country first, no matter what, are shying away from today's disgusting political reality.

I completely agree with you about waking people up. The questions is waking up to do what?

 

[fallenarch]

it is funny but the founders set the process up so that congressman were ordinary citizens. They were to be the voice of the common man. That's why the terms were only 4 years, an amount most could spend away from the farm. Senators were given 6 year terms. They were seen as the professional guys running the show and making sure things worked properly. This is why the president serves only 4 years o prevent them from becoming kings. Funny to look at congress now and see how far it has gone wrong!

 

[IG.]

I am with you on this, brother. Some of them "served" multiple terms and spent good chunk of their lives there. Sometimes I hear their speeches, how they look, their attitude, and I know one shouldn't draw conclusion from superficial things, but some of them seem so far out of place, so detached from our reality.

 

[fallenarch]

I don't blame you fallenarch, and once again I applaud and appreciate your thoughtful and time consuming participation. I wouldn't be surprised our paths will cross in the future.

While I don't know the circumstances of your interaction with the senator you mentioned, I would speculate that he was more concerned with preserving his political position/career than with truly serving the country, which sometimes means a senator tells a hard truth even at the risk of his career/political position, and stands by it. I really believe it would be possible to have such politicians in the future. Most of today's politicians are really career politicians. The kind of people who truly want to serve their country first, no matter what, are shying away from today's disgusting political reality.

I completely agree with you about waking people up. The questions is waking up to do what?

Yes, very few statesmen left on either side.

 

[StrtRac3r]

Soooo, I've read through all the posts on this thread. Actually that's kinda surprising to me because generally I skip over the deep threads, but I keep seeing it pop up. I'd like to see a link again where to read the book, is it free, online, or a download? Maybe I just missed it.

Before I read, I noticed this question;

So what have you learned from this process and what would you change about CAP?

Anything and everything. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that the final implementation will be 90% different. I truly believe that this should be the product of a collective effort. The proposed approach is simply the first iteration.

I'm not sure if it was answered in the way intended, and it's more of a curiosity than anything at this point (will not change my opinion.) I would like to reword it even though I have not read the book.

After this thread, and in conversations about CAP with others, is there anything you think needs looked at further as of now? Anything conversations that have caused you to question any part if the approach? Not to doubt, but to rethink parts.

 

[IG.]

Not really, except for the threshold of disapproval and removal percentages which are somewhat arbitrary to begin with. My objective is not to preserve the proposed approach with all details, but to solve the bigger problem. I truly believe this could only be done collectively, and it is inevitable that the collective smarts/experience of many people is far greater than that of one person.

The text of the book itself can be found from the first post of this thread.

 

[StrtRac3r]

Ha I read that and saw the post numbers, didn't even notice the blue text. Thanks.