Builder Forum Summary

This is a quick collection of posts from the forum suggesting possible ways to self govern.

A Brief Description

Keeping in mind the old adage “There is no accounting for human stupidity.” we must make our best effort to accomplish that; hoping to at lest account for lazy thinking and then consider the rest as making a personal choice. That said, the goal should should be to give a citizen the opportunity to raise a concern in his/her community and then quickly and easily give them a way to find support and problem solve a solution. I think the best way to approach to this would be by creating a streamlined critical thinking process something like this. To account for the lazy thinkers we make the questions as multiple choice and “clicky” as possible avoiding requiring wordy answers. Once the questions are answered a issue ticket is posted on the network as a node location that can be physically shared by the citizen to others. Citizens and stakeholders “people” can link to the node as being effected. If enough effected citizens and stakeholders are found to warrant a further investigation it can also be expected that some citizens have joined the movement who are not lazy thinkers and can answer wordier questions with wordier answers. Upgrading a ticket into a solution proposal results in questions that more then likely will require government information to answer. Ideally we would have an elected representative to officially request the information thru but until we represent we will need old fashioned phone calls, emails and persistent footwork. Another ideal situation is the group or the government has a practical solution and all can agree allowing the issue to be quickly labeled resolved and providing a path going forward. More then likely the solution will require additional information particularly in the effected citizens questions as the polling process will widen the scope of people and stakeholders made aware. This should be expected to begin to raise opposition to most solutions for large issue tickets and should halt progress until compromises can be made or new solutions can be proposed that meet majority consent of effected citizens networked. Once consent is gained the project proposal can advance to a project plan where it can be expected that at this point enough community and stakeholder involvement has resulted in a detailed goal path to be planed into the agenda with clear and achievable milestones.

The Builder forum wiki thread

The thought is to take this and make it into more like this with a preference for the structure to resemble the accounting framework for easier project development. The idea being changes and projects on the wiki are translated to policy dockets to be tabled or etc. in the ways required.
 
The reason(s) for doing this is because canada.ca is explaining and guiding people on how to use their government.  The purpose of the wiki is to precisely define and describe all the components and functions of the departments clearly and concisely.  How to use the government should be left for the government to do.  Our purpose is to advise our elected representatives on how to effect positive change towards solving the problems the various departments have. 
 
For example, a local area begins to see increased vehicle traffic and a larger intersection is required to accommodate.  The intersection will require demolishing the local homeless shelter which the shelter is not prepared to do.  Here we have two issues, traffic and homelessness.  The government has taken care of the traffic problem with an intersection solution which leaves the homelessness problem for us to solve.  Do we create a department to manage homeless people?  Do we finance a relocation plan and outreach program?  Do we just accept the traffic?  The traffic will be accepted until someone wants to change it.  That someone contacts the traffic department and is informed of the homeless problem which prompts the call for political action to resolve the issue.  The department directs that person to their elected representative.  The idea here is instead of contacting the elected office the person initiates a wiki ticket for attention to a problem and proposes a solution to gather attention and start a problem solving phase.  The tickets are monitored by citizen volunteers as well as being watched by effected people as the traffic in that area effects them so they watch the area.  A default project is started and funded once an issue has more supporters working the ticket. Either a national initiative to end homelessness is started or a local inventive to relocate a shelter is started.  The default project plan can be worked into a clear concise viable project plan with all cases addressed for government agencies to carry out with ease. The project then becomes a docket for election.

Guided Problem Solving

This phase is the second most important part of the whole movement with the agenda being the first.  I wanted to make a start on this and was thinking of Who but stopped because I should focus on solutions to get an agenda item.  The reason it is so important is because most solutions can be found in the problem if enough information is given.  The goal of the Critical Thinking process is to drill into the problems through a simple question interface much like this game. The interface for citizens will be focused on answering [Who], [What], [When], [Where] and [Why] to generate the information needed for a solution proposal.  Another difference being the our interface must be hand written and not AI generated, although having both would be great.  It is hand written to maintain a transparent process and can advance the subject of critical thinking.

“Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in “authority” to have sound knowledge and insight… He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief.”

 

Putting the process into a computer algorithm would obfuscate the topic and limit the science to computer which would be unproductive for a society.

I bracketd the 5Ws because this topic should be a sub category if not primary but I don’t see a way with this forum to make sub categories.  I was thinking of using [] to tag subjects and make a poor man’s sub-topic, if needed.
 
I also wanted to make a start on this because the process is supposed to be designed to be as fun or engaging as the game :) but I won’t start here :(  so have fun!

Tyranny of the Majority

On the Governance front page I mentioned “Mod Rule” and more should be said about this.  Mob Rule comes from the simple logic the needs of the many out way the needs of the few.  This can be seen with a tank full of crabs and no food.   The first thing that happens is the big crabs eat the small crabs.  This solves the problem of all the crabs dying, as it was quick, easy solution that works.  Except when there is only one crab. The one crab situation is a new problem that was created by the first solution.  No crab saw the problem until their were no crabs left to eat.  Of course, this leaves us wondering why they didn’t lock shells, climb out and escape together from the beginning.
 
There are two mechanisms that can be used to catch oppression of the minority, Elected Representative Deferral and the Keeper’s Dissent.     These occur during the formal meetings were plans and instructions are signed off, handed over, or otherwise given to civil leadership.  While it can be expected that the Representatives participated in creating most of the plan’s items it can also be expected that some items are not “their” idea.  In fact those ideas are likely oppressive to them and their community but due to majority consent it appears in the agenda.    At the very lest we would hope the representative will show all oppressed minorities compassion and Defer the plan.  The act of Deferral allows the representative to not formally instruct the staff to carry out the plan and to appeal for them to Dissent the item.  If an item is Deferred and Dissented it will need a new representative and/or new civil leadership both of which would require a new general election.  But even with a new representative and new civil leadership the item could still not be carried out.  This should be considered a good thing and no action should be taken until a proper solution is found.  The idea here being the majority should be the ones to suffer if suffering is acceptable.  Since replacing a civil leader requires a willing representative and choosing a representative is not guaranteed to give you someone who agrees with either the replacement, or the item, it would be best to find a new solution.