Difference between revisions of "Talk:RBE10K/Contributors/Agreements"

Revision as of 19:44, 27 February 2013

Additional rules

• alcohol
• drugs (hard and soft)
• guns and other weapons

I would propose no alcohol and no drugs. The latter would get us into trouble with the authorities anyway so that should be self evident. Alcohol would present an unfair burden on other people. Abuse, like noise, aggression, making a mess, are almost bound to happen, even if people initially set out to only drink a few glasses. The costs outweigh the benefits. Making alcohol ourselves will be problematic as well. Alternatively we could have part of the group abstain, and part of the group not abstain, to see which works best. Maybe superfluous, guns should be forbidden. I think there's no argument there. wouter.drucker (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't protect people from getting confused

I have made a new page and called it 'government'. I know this word carries associations we all want to distance ourselves from, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word, and create new associations. If people are so lazy as to see a world and start yelling right away, without investigating what the word means to us, that's kind of their problem. wouter.drucker (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on agreements

• "I pledge to frequently seeking information to challenge my powerful convictions"

This will probably lead to excluding Christians (among others). I would opt not to exclude religious individuals but instead integrating them in our community and relying on the community to gradually teach these people a habit of challenging convictions. Going the easy way might be considered a missed opportunity.

• "I agree to accept the wisdom of the collective in this project (i.e. overwhelming consensus rather than the majority) even when I personally disagree with a decision."

This is the weakest of the bunch to me. A little analogy for clarity. Three people want to watch television, one doesn't. Course of action: watch television. Now it happens a second time, and a third, course of action for fourth time: don't watch television. Example two: three people want to abuse fourth. Okay, superfluous but added for completeness.

So what I am saying is you can't rely on these kinds of rules. You have to find a way where all the parties are made happy: three people watch television and the fourth does something else in a separate room. An rbe should very much be about overcoming the first, scarcity type, situation, and create the second, everybody wins, situation. When there is scarcity you have to resort to political solutions (political in this case meaning, who gets what). We have to overcome this using planning and reason.

• "I respect any adult individual's freedom for self-determination, even if I have reason to believe they're self-harming."

In the (rare) case a person would pose a life and death threat to himself, the condition (drug abuse, suicidal behavior, psychosis) should be extensively discussed as well as the motive of the person intervening as well as the way this person has gotten the power to do so. Great care has to go in examining power structures and psychological characteristics of the people involved.

Positive psychology says that the problem such a person is facing is a lack of positive health, i.e. a lack of joy, exercise, art, achievement, belonging, competency etc. (sources: Alfie Kohn, Tal Ben-Shahar)

Agreements vs Rules

Rules tend to be associated with a Ruler (monarch) or with game rules (breaking them is cheating), or social Moral.

Agreements, on the other hand, can be offered for either consent or dissent (see Wikipedia's Consensus decision-making#Agreement vs. consent. Agreements are there to be consented, not necessarily personally agreed to them. Breaking an agreement does not incur in a penalty, or is considered cheating, but more of an antisocial behaviour (as per the expectations on behaviour by general consensus).

Therefore, it is important to make a distinction between rules and agreements, and avoid using any language that would suggest authority in a RBE system. Ziggy (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree and would prefer the term 'rules'. There can be all kinds of circumstances where it is legitimate for people to break rules, and it often happens (I am speaking from my own experience) where these people will be told that they have 'agreed upon this and this'. This way the term can be confusing and can (subconsciously) be used as a weapon. Usually these kinds of euphemisms are ineffective (consider 'black person'). There is no monarch in the Rbe10K project and we don't have to protect people from getting confused. I consider the topic of minor importance however. wouter.drucker (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions versus No restrictions (coercion versus no coercion)

Scientific method = present evidence. Evidence supporting Restrictions: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2012/12/Legalised-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking.aspx Summary: human trafficking is higher in countries where prostitution is legal.

wouter.drucker (talk)

Proposal for application of rules

Ignore all rules

If a rule stops you from improving or maintaining the RBE10K Project, ignore it.

Reputation versus rationality

If the person in charge of the money thinks A is the best decision, and the majority of the participants think B is the best decision, the person in charge of the money should choose A. If he didn't he would knowingly make a bad decision, with the benefit of not setting a precedent for future power abuse. These kinds of abusive situations only arise when there is scarcity. Projecting an aura of consistency or ethical reliability shouldn't be a concern. What matters is taking rational decisions. Consciously making bad decisions in order to protect ones sense of integrity is a form of martyrdom we should refrain from.

The same goes for whether to use money. If for example there is an overcapacity in energy production it may very well make sense to sell the surplus. This is just a rational choice, as letting the energy (or money) go to waste just doesn't make sense. The goal of the project is to get to a RBE, not to be one right away, and the consistency is in the belief of the participants in the RBE theory behind it. Proving to the outside world that we are consistent should not stand in the way of making rational decisions.