posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:41 AM
I agree with this to a point, I think we are screaming out for a better idea but its not just as easy as getting the idea out, there will or could be
great opposition to a good idea for some.
I truly think we have to agree on principals before we can move forward> How we deal with Religion, Who make the laws> How we deal with the less
fortunate in our societies and how much influence and credit? do we give to achievers.
Someone or somehow to get the publics opinion geographically and globally.
I think if you could get local achievers on board (like say freemasons, bankers, business men) then you might be able to have a go at higher level
authority if they opposed.
It's not nearly that difficult, if you take a binary system and add a third idea you only need to convince 33.34% of people in absolute terms, and
about 13% of people in practical terms. Getting the message out to about 2% of people will actually get it in public debates to spread. With a
product rather than idea you need to reach considerably less.
I disagree with trying to perfect our existing concepts before creating new ones. There's always room for improvement, if we don't move in because
of that imperfect system, we'll never move on.
Principals don't really need to align 100% because the idea is freedom. I can do what I want and you can do what you want. The only restriction is
that while seeking out what we each want to do, we can't harm each other.
Why is religion something that needs to be dealt with in a country that allows freedom? You can practice your religion, and you can worship in your
church. Someone else can do the same. Their only restriction is that when practicing their religion they can't harm another (no ritual sacrifice,
jihad, or so on).
Dealing with the less fortunate is a bit more difficult of a question. How much of a safety net should the state provide is certainly a matter of
debate. Instead why not frame the question in a different manner? Crime statistics have shown that if they have some minimum comforts in life
(shelter, food, some entertainment... basic comforts) that they're far less likely to commit violent crime that strips them of their life, because
they have something to live for. So the question actually becomes, should we spend money on preventing crime or only on restitution of the crime?
This still invokes the freedom vs security debate (some of your money has been earmarked, reducing your freedom but in return you're safer) but it's
oriented around what types of results we want in our society rather than ideological principals. Simple Democracy and some cost/benefit analysis can
take it from there.
I don't know what you're getting at with achiever credit.