Category: Discussions

Equality

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

Is there an Ethical Basis for human equality or should the rule of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest prevail?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Equality is a very wide term. The people should have equal rights, but they do not have equal skills nor needs and they have not equally contributed to creating values in society. Therefore, a compromise needs to be made. However, I would never agree with the results that lead toward the battle for survival in society.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

Like equality, survival is a broad term also. More than just life and death of an individual, it comprises; corporations, organizations, social groups, social structures, political structures, and entire species. Is excellence and long-term survivability achieved through the struggle for the survival of these things (listed above) or through some type of group oversight that believes they know what excellence is.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

It’s hard to answer your question because the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I think it is more important to present what will be than what was. When the system I have proposed becomes accepted somewhere, the people will easily recognise what excellence is. Each man will be guaranteed with human and civil rights. Also each man will receive an income from the day of birth up to the day of death dependant on values of his present and past work. The income will always be high enough to ensure existence. Also, each man will receive medical insurance and free education. Each man will have an equal chance to get work at any work place he wishes. Each man will be able to protect his interests everywhere he wishes, by himself. As you see, I am talking about natural human beings. Everything else you mentioned will depend on the needs of those human beings. If something is needed, that will survive, otherwise it will not. In the end, I do not expect the struggle for survival anywhere. That is mostly because there would not exist a division between privileged and unprivileged people. I expect cooperation at all levels of human relationships.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

How does limited resources and human greed figure into this. I believe we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but the resources needed to allow all individuals to self actualize would be enormous, possibly more than the planet has.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

The book is actually about disalienation. It teaches the people to recognize the natural needs and values, and to live in accordance with their nature. When the idea realizes its success the planet Earth will be big enough for all. If you read the book you would find why.

 

Evaluation

Adrian Parker wrote:

There’s something about the “evaluation” process I don’t understand… is it basically that every person would have the right to periodically (say, once a month) transfer a fixed amount of money (say, one dollar) from any one person of the society to another, excluding himself? If I am correct so far, wouldn’t everyone under this system merely transfer money from people they don’t know (i.e. public figures) to people they do know (i.e. their families and friends)? What would stop people from ganging up against each other in a mad effort to vote themselves as much money as they can?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You may exchange a positive evaluation with your wife and earn let’s say five dollars which would be, for example, the total power of evaluation. I believe you would agree with me that is not a big deal. You may find more appropriate to award somebody with that money who, in your opinion, deserves it. On the other hand, making agreements with somebody not to exchange bad evaluations does not make sense because you would never know who gives the evaluation to you.

If you receive 100 negative evaluations that will tell you that you are doing something significantly wrong to other people. Also you would have to pay, for example, 100 dollars for receiving those bad evaluations and that will force you to change your behaviour and satisfy other people. On the other hand, an award with such money would confirm your positive orientation and bring benefits. Average people would probably not get any evaluation in most cases, only significantly positive and negative people will. The implementation of such a simple system would in a short period of time bring huge benefits to society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

You are discounting the tendency of humans to stick together. If an extended family of about 20 members chooses to pool their evaluation powers, that means they can take $100 away from anyone each month (assuming $5 month).

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Why would somebody listen to another person whom he has to evaluate? The system encourages individuality so that each person would be more than willing to evaluate the person who makes the best and worst things to him/her and would not let anybody tell them what to do. Ask yourself, would you rather give a bad evaluation to somebody you are asked to give, or to your bad boss, or to a salesperson who sold you spoiled food, or to a politician who lied to you? I do not have any doubt in the result. However, I have to admit that a non-ethical evaluation is possible, but an individual evaluation will not have large influences on the evaluated people. If a non-ethical person tries to persuade other people into a conspiracy against somebody he might easily be punished by the bad evaluations from non-persuaded people.

A non-ethical person will certainly make a lot of mistakes so that he would receive negative evaluations from other individuals and that would force him to learn ethical behaviour. Certainly, the evaluations will help the society reach greater benefits. However, in order to eliminate any suspicion of society towards the evaluation we may try it for example with awards and punishments with only one cent or even without any money charge to show people how it works. I am positive it will be a huge contribution to the development of society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Considering the problems I find it very understandable that no larger community wants to adopt this system until they’ve got hard data that it works. How about, instead of waiting for someone to try this system “somewhere in the world”, doing it yourself? You said that 3 people is enough to make it work, then why not test it with your family at first? Or in a group of likeminded friends? How does that sound?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

The proposed system is supposed to completely replace the existing one. It is much simpler than the existing one but it is still very complex. It requires teams of experts and scientists to research and tune the system, and create numerous scenarios about all kinds of problems (including your complaints) before any implementation. I cannot do it alone.

After that, three people may start testing the system but the result will not be spectacular when only a few people are involved. Hundreds or thousands will show a much better result. Especially, it will be useless testing the system inside my family because we already solve our problems in the best possible way through discussions and we do not charge each other for anything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

This system seems to be a hindrance to the freedom of speech. A public figure is likely to get more evaluation than unknowns, and perhaps many people will rather not take the risk of getting enormous negative evaluation before writing an opinion to the local bulletin board, or publishing a book. Do you think Salman Rushdie would have dared to write his novels if he knew he’d be paying for it the rest of his life (when fundamentalists keep giving him negative evaluations)? Not to mention that in a smaller scale, everyone will hide all the negative feelings or opinions in fear of “looking bad”, this would be a very superficial community.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Salman Rushdie would not dare to offend the Muslim religion in the name of free speech because the freedom of offence will not exist. In the system I have proposed he would pay a huge price.

We are that much in love with ourselves that we believe our way of living is the best possible in the whole world, which is certainly not true. Such an orientation, in fact, says more that we are very concerned about our way of living but cannot face it. We try to raise ourselves by attacking other ideologies and religions. But that does not work this way; it only increases antagonism and conflicts. The only right way in fighting battles with other ideologies lies in finding a better way of living for us ourselves. When we succeed, our inner satisfaction and harmony inside our society would certainly attract other people to join our values and the world would become a much better place to be. That is the only right way. My system tries to do exactly that. When we find a natural way of living all ideologies and religions would not be very important any more. We will simply live everything what is acceptable in them.

As long as people respect other people they do not need to hide anything and especially not how they “look like”. The system of evaluation will be teaching people to respect others and that is one of the main preconditions to achieve a better future of society. Besides, the whole purpose of the system I have proposed is to overthrow a superficial community and to build a natural one.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Would you have been willing to publish your book and make this website if you knew that you might get several hundreds of dollars of penalties from people who don’t like your ideas?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake just because he refused to recant his beliefs. The system I have proposed offers economic and political stability, optimal satisfaction of people’s needs, absence of crisis, war or any kind of destruction. It offers love, peace, joy, and harmony to the people. Not one other system in the world has been serious in offering such things. On top of it all, no one will burn me at stake for it :-). I would certainly be persistent without matter of any possible bad evaluations I might receive from some people. I believe I would receive much more positive evaluations from the people who enjoy life in the new system.

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Aleksandar, Adrain Parker is right. People are of a herd mentality. People do stick together. Families, clans, whatever you want to call it. Even friends have formed fraternities over the years. Just how do you think cartels came about? Wasn’t it packs of greedy individuals with the same sinister plan? That plan was not to give you an honest evaluation, but to try to shaft you out of anything they could. Even family member will team up and fight with other family members. Just watch when there is some monetary gain to be made from some deceased’s last will and testament. Then watch all of those honest evaluations you are talking about. The same can hold true for promotions. Better refine this idea, it won’t float. JRL

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Today we have a pretty much closed society. People do not have much choices and that is the reason they often stick together even when the issue is not ethical. The system I have proposed will eliminate privileges and that will bring freedom and unlimited choices to every individual. Nothing will be same as today. In the future, the people will also “stick together” but that would include only normal social interests. Others would have to respect their needs. But if the group starts acting non-ethically it will destroy itself. First, a non-ethical relation towards one member of society would result with his leaving the group and then a non-ethical evaluation will break up the group itself. The rest of the answer is already written in this thread here.

 

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Groups have stuck together that are not ethical. The federal reserve comes to mind. It has been operating since 1913, and has taken the American tax payer to the cleaners for all of these decades. Congress has the power to change this, but is in the pockets of the fed. Now you tell me how a group with so much power is going to destroy itself, before it destroys the wealth and livelihood of the American people? No sir, You are obviously forgetting to look at who has the power. Just the fact that the general populace is apathetic, keeps the nasty groups in power, and strengthens that power grip they have on us. Your theory about the ethical weeding out the bad, is just a dream in the real world. Not enough people will stand up for their rights, let alone other’s rights. Try again Alek, but let’s be realistic. JRL

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

I have described the group with so much power you are talking about here. It will be overthrown by a stronger, smarter, more productive and profitable group. I have defined it in Work competition, Democracy or Anarchy and in the whole book.

Alienation

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Alienation? Alienation from what? From others? Try the fundamental social dichotomy between an individual and a member of society within every single human being. You are talking about abstraction, not alienation.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well, there is a decline from Marx here. I created my own theory of alienation and that would be: alienation is a deviation of perception of an objective reality. In short, subjectivism creates alienation. I expect attacks here but I will survive. However, my idea is to solve fundamental dialectical dichotomies between individuals and society and much more. That is what this book is about.

 

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

How much do you know about dialectics to embark on a reconciliation crusade? While you are at it, could you also reconcile ying and yung, please?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

My intention is to bring the people closer to their nature, which is pretty much unique for humankind. That would be the so called process of disalienation. When it succeeds, all ideologies around the world would not matter much.

 

Work Competition

Fred Chittenden wrote:

Working privileges are best set by private agreement between worker and employer with some basic guidelines for civility in the process. In general, the more centralized this process is, the less productive and response is the resulting workforce. And visa versa.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Free market we recognise so far has been giving the highest production but also it gave some limitations and those were not rational productions, not stable productions, not fair distributions of benefits, and crisis. A centralized process of production mostly solves such problems. Yes, in general, the more centralized processes have given a less productive environment. But in the future, that will change. Thanks to the development of computer technology, the central managing of huge companies becomes easier then before and as a result, huge corporations are more productive than small ones and grow. However, the huge international corporations are still fully incapable of solving social problems such as unemployment and fair distribution of benefits that come from work so that social crisis are going to grow as well. Therefore, in order to solve this problem I propose much more market than capitalism can afford. Under the public property I offer open work competition all the time where each job should go to the worker who proposes higher productivity, lower price for the present work and higher responsibility for doing it. That is a huge challenge to society but also this is the future of production. In order to diminish employment tensions the management will have to establish the same amount of work posts as there are workers available. Such an economy will finally solve problems of today’s production.

This kind of production will be much better and profitable than the production of private enterprises and therefore, private enterprises will lose competition on the free market. In order to escape from losses, the owners of private enterprises will join the public ownership of the means of production. They will receive the “humanistic” shares proportionally to the values of surrendered ownerships and that will proportionally raise their income. Therefore, capitalists may find interest in selling their enterprises to society. If not, nobody will try to take their property from them.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You are talking about centralized planning, not just individual planning?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Production will be planned by producers the same way the enterprises plan their production today. For the best result, they may involve consumers to order their consumption. That would be the democratically planned economy – the best and safest economy possible. So that centralized planning will be just a sum of all individual planning.

Yes of course I believe that centralized planning is the best. It is more rational and secure than the planning of independent enterprises. Big businesses know that and that is the reason they merge. To avoid poor productivity of the Soviet model for example, we need to implement the market competition on a lower level, on the level of work places. Best worker at every work place at any time would make the highest possible productivity (13 pages here from my book would explain it).

As a result, consumers would have less chances to choose between similar type of goods or services because the competition between similar products and services will diminish. That would bring more rationality to the process of production. The highest level of quality and satisfaction of the consumer’s needs will be enforced by the consumers evaluation of products and services. Do you remember democratic anarchy (plus minus one dollar or whatever)?

This is the future of everything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

How can a “socialist company” allocate resources any more efficiently than a capitalist one? Surely there is a big incentive for capitalist companies to also get the “best man for the job”, and I don’t see any reason why a socialist system could do this any more wisely than capitalists (after all, if a capitalist company doesn’t allocate resources well, it cannot compete with those companies that do, so eventually there will be capitalist companies that are able to put the best man for each job just as well as any “socialists company”).

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Actually I have called it a humanist company. It sounded weird at the beginning but I got used to it.

The capitalist company would not be able to allocate the human resources as well as the humanistic one. For example, in the capitalist company the worker who might produce 5% more than the existing worker could not get the job. He cannot even apply for the position without an announcement. The owner of the company could not easily accept his offer because the system does not provide any warranties for the proposed productivity. The existing laws prevent owners from firing the existing worker in order to hire more productive ones even when he wishes it. I am talking about every work place at any time.

The humanist company can easily provide all of that and therefore it will be more productive. In a society of million workers for instance, each of them will be able to compete for every job at every work post. Logic said at least one of them will perform the work productivity better than the worker in the capitalist company where such competitive opportunity could not exist.

Secondly, all the workers will be the humanistic shareholders of the humanist company and therefore, they would be certainly much more concerned and responsible for the work than the workers in the capitalist company. As a result, the humanist company will be much more productive and the capitalist one will have to withdraw. We may assume that the capitalist companies would try hard to find an escape by forming the same work organisation as the public ones but they would never be able to allow workers to choose their responsibilities and salaries so that they would have to go to history.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Why hasn’t anyone ever established a humanist company, if it is superior to current capitalist companies? Is a change in laws needed, for example give employers the power to fire anyone they think is not efficient enough for the job?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

First of all, in the new system a fire-hire relationship will not exist any more. The new production relationships will be based on the work competition. Better production bid will get the job anytime. If the worker does not realize the proposed production he is going to pay the responsibility with his humanistic shares. How that would work? If I, for example, would like to get the job belonging to some other worker, I would have to offer a higher productivity or lower price of present work for the desired work post. Then, the existing worker who works at the work post I would like to take, would have two choices: first, to accept my production bid what will allow him to continue holding his work position; or second, the responsibility for the new requirements of the position will force him to leave. If he leaves he would continue to receive an income, which would be lower each month he does not work. However, the system can easily create a needed number of work places so that it will not be hard for anybody to get a new job.

I have described the basis of the work division in 13 pages of the book. The idea is very complex and still requires a lot of research and tuning. I am positive at the end, the work division will work very simply and smoothly. Of course, the new law about work would have to be accepted by the consensus of political parties and directly by the referendum of the people before the implementation of the work competition. Besides, the system requires also a humanistic ownership of the means of production (something similar to the public ownership) which is not a very popular idea today. The system requires a developed IT technology, which happened recently. Somebody had to invite the humanist company and not too many offers have been seen. Not to mention powerful people will lose many privileges and they do not like it. Those are the reasons nobody has established a humanist company yet.

Democratic Anarchy

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You mention an automatic advantage to the positively assessed. Who pays it and who decides how much?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

That is one of the most important parts of the system I have proposed and I am very proud of inventing it. I will present democratic anarchy in a very simple sample. Let the people accept my idea and decide to give every man the right to evaluate other people every month. Let a positive evaluation give a total of one dollar (or whatever) to the evaluated person. And vice versa, let a negative evaluation take a total of one dollar (or whatever) from the evaluated person. The evaluation will be anonymous and money will be taken and added from the account of each evaluated man automatically. That right would make every man try to please every other man as much as they can and prevent every man from doing something other people do not like. This measure will affect every man, his neighbour, teacher, chief, co-worker, friend, and of course the government. Such a government will try very hard not to disappoint its people. Such a simple measure will bring huge benefits to society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Evaluation by spending money seems much better and efficient to me. No need for any complex super-social structures or computers.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You think the market is better? I believe it is not even as close to good as the evaluation. Contrary to the system I have proposed, the market does not give a stable production and therefore cannot produce a stable society. The system of evaluation is socially just because it gives an equal right to each man and market does not. Market does not have any influence in the human relationships out of purchasing commodities. For example, if your neighbour produces noise (this is a production too) at night the market cannot help you anyhow. These kinds of issues may be unlimited. Sometimes your boss may be a real jerk and the market cannot help you cheer him up. All these issues will be perfectly solved with the system of evaluation

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Do not underestimate desire to take somebody higher down. I do not trust good intentions of individuals, but when millions of them considered, stupidity and malice is balanced out. Your system does not have such protection because it is unnatural, super-imposed.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well I think that the system I have proposed is the most natural one ever created. The system will disalienate the society and that means the people will respect other people. Also, the work market will make all work positions equally desired. That will diminish a possibility and need of taking “somebody higher down” what ever it means to you.

Yes, every knee-jerk will have the right to take one dollar from anyone which would not be a big deal. Those kinds of people would hardly unite to make a damage to society and would have to pay much more attention on their behaviour than on the misevaluations. A bad person may easily lose 100 dollars or more monthly.

Let’s say the president of a country makes a decision the people extremely do not like. He may receive monthly for example 1,000,000 negative evaluations from the people and as a result he would lose one million dollars monthly. Well, the big punishments and awards might be reduced by some kind of functions but anyway, the evaluations would make the president of a country really responsible to the people. A bad president in my system would run from his position so fast that no one would even remember he was the president. Something similar would happened to any professional, for example to a producer of socks. The producer will have to make socks consumers like. That will be a real responsibility. That will eliminate privileges. That will affect everyone everywhere and that will make a healthy society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

This is a horrible idea. It will ensure that nobody decent will ever get into politics. Only those that can afford loosing such amounts of money (because they will find ways to recover those losses) will. Such a system will open flood doors for corruption.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

It seems to me that you would like to stop the development of society and enforce authoritarian rules forever. There will not be any chance for corruption in the system I have proposed because there will not be privileged people. Managers and politicians will be pretty much exposed to the evaluation. Logic says that a non decent person will be more likely to avoid politics or managing of an economy and a decent one will try hard not to disappoint the people. And if that kind of evaluation would be unacceptable to the people we may change the evaluation with “plus minus one dollar” to the evaluation with “plus minus one cent”. Now we have a reasonable beginning for somebody who is afraid of the evaluation. No more big harm would be made so let’s see who is right and who is wrong.

Voting Power

Ron Peterson wrote:

I don’t see how A. Sarovic is solving a problem, it seems to meet the desires of the capitalist exactly, each person should get to vote in proportion to their wealth. If you measure a person’s contribution by the number of hours he has worked in his life, a 40 year old would have twice the voting power of a 30 year old. Ron

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

First, I believe that an equal voting right is probably an ideal we should long. But, at this moment, it is absolutely unacceptable to the powerful people around the world because an equal voting power in real democracy may easily decide to take the power from the most powerful people. The point is that powerful people has been creating rules in society alone without matter what kind of so called democracy has been established. They get all kinds of benefits from the system and they would rather produce huge destruction then give a really equal voting right to the people. On the other hand, one could find justification in giving more voting rights to the people who contribute more to the development of society. Such a measure may be very stimulative for the productive orientation of society.

In such circumstances, a compromise I offered looks like the best solution. The compromise should be equally acceptable to all the people. We may base voting power on equality as it is today. On top of that, we may give an additional voting power to each man proportionally to the wealth of each man. A total number of life time working hours of workers may be included somehow as well. In addition the value lies in creating new lives (birth of babies), education, also in any contribution of a man that improves the life of society (which is more difficult to determine), etc. The impact of each kind of value to the voting power will be subject of a hard negotiation among political parties. But finally, they may produce the result (by consensus) with which will be easy to calculate the voting power of each man. The final result may be an equal voting power (if for example all agree that the voting power should be given only by one’s existence) up to let’s say an unlimitedly different voting power among the people.

Would the different voting power among the people be unjust? Hardly. If we compare it with what we have today. Today a 17 year old does not have any voting power but an 18 year old does, which decides nothing. My offer makes the system equally acceptable to all. Powerful people will give up from ruling the society but will get decent and recognized voting power and many other benefits such as a high income for example. Others will lose a non-existent equal voting power but will get some real voting power maybe for the first time in the history of mankind. The whole society will benefit in stability, security, and productivity. Is it possible? Similar phenomenons happened when some European kings voluntarily gave up from the absolute power and gave it to parliaments.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

The biggest problem with this is its idealistic notion: we can create some mechanism that will work wonders. Well, who is going to participate in the task of pooling? And finally, who is going to make the final decision? Can you guarantee that such an unnatural exercise will not be a) botched by misjudgements or (likely) b) corrupted from within? Impossible to implement. Specialization in modern world require professional decision makers. In your system, every knee-jerk emotional reaction will have its voice as well.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

In the system I have proposed, the people will choose political parties as they do today. Political parties will prepare the Constitutional Law and few of the most important laws such as the law about decision making in society and about labour. These laws will be made by consensuses of political parties and after that they will have to be accepted on referendum by let’s say 2/3 of total votes and that will be final. I cannot see significant changes here.

Democracy will especially be needed in economy. Every member of society will participate in making decisions about the macroeconomic policy of society. Each voter will actually divide his voting points (the quantity will be equal to the gross income of the individual) for the individual consumption, collective consumption and for the development of production in the possible range determined by the parliament. The sum of all these voting points made by all the voters for each group will determine the amount of money allocated for each group. The number of decisions might be made about the distribution of money for collective consumption as long as that would be in the interest of the people. The people may directly decide about the minimum wage as well. These decisions will be final.

I do not think that any education is necessarily needed for such voting. People will simply, through their living experience, consider what funds will need more money to be allocated in and what less and that is all. These few decision points will manage the whole macroeconomic policy of society and therefore it would simply and extremely efficiently manage the whole society. I cannot see why you think that a direct democracy is impossible to achieve, or why it would be unnatural, or how it might be corrupted? On the contrary, I think such a democracy will make the best choice to society. I guess there would be no need for more democracy than what is described above. All other decisions in society will make leaders and they would be directly responsible for the people.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Consensus implies no disagreements, vs. majority rule. Political parties will have a very hard time coming up with anything based on consensus. When was the last time that a consensus was achieved on anything in a democracy and on public level, not among representatives? So, no consensus.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well, each decision made against the wish of minority on a long run makes damage to society. The damages manifest in all possible kinds of destructions inside society. Will the political parties come to their wisdom after a disaster occurs or will their wisdom be faster? In the worst case, the political parties will wait a couple of years or more and try to find the consensus again. However, somewhere around the world the consensus might be found soon and it would certainly show the world that it is the best choice for humankind and most likely the only good one.

Political parties will prepare all the main decisions by consensus, which means a small party may stop the referendum (It certainly gives an unequal voting power as well). Once the direct democratic practice is established, the people will simply not allow anything less than democracy the same way they would not allow slavery today.

At the end, it comes to my mind that an unequal voting power will be a pretty much formal power. It will rather present how much each individual has contributed to building the values to society than anything else. One man with one vote or with thousands of them cannot significantly change the voting result where millions or billions of votes decide. Real individual power will come from democratic anarchy and there, each man has to have an equal power.

Discuss Religion

Recently I have found a similarity between what I created and what Jesus Christ is supposed to create when he returns to the planet Earth. That opens some possibility that I may be Jesus Christ. That is the reason I added to my website this discussion about the Christian religion. I am new in the field so that your comments may help me to learn more about it. I know, me as Jesus Christ is supposed to be the greatest authority in the Christian religion, but unfortunately I missed all of the courses about that. Take my excuses and I will give you my opinion based on my logic and intuition that I might have gotten directly from God. But of course, I am not sure about that so please take it conditionally.

Please open discussions:

 

1.   Just an Observation   3 comments

2.   Response to a Big Christian Organisation   1 comment

3.   Question   2 comments

4.   Dilemmas   1 comment

Discuss Humanism

These pages allow you to actively participate in the discussion about the creation of a better future of mankind. This page contains links to all discussions related with all the topics having to do with this book. You are free to open up a discussion by raising theses or questions, comment the theses of other participants, or to respond to the questions raised by them. Your comments are not to offend anybody on any account. All constructive forms of both the attack on and of the defence of the views presented in the book will be more than welcome. Your comments will help me write a better and more understandable book

Please open discussions:

 

  1.     Voting Power 6 comments

  2.     Democratic Anarchy  8  comments

  3.     Work Competition 8  comments

  4.     Alienation 4 comments

  5.     Positive and Negative Evaluations  14 comments

  6.     Ethical Basis for Equality   6 comments

  7.     Electronic Tagging of all Individuals 2 comments

  8.     Economic Model Applicability to Population Density    6 comments

  9.     Monetary Systems    2 comments

10.     Direct Democracy or Anarchy?   1 comment

11.     Hierarchic or Free Production?    1 comment