Timothy Wilken
Well it appears my recent article Beyond Democracy has been quite provocative. A reader of Friday’s article Devil’s Advocate has written with a number of comments. In the dialogue that follows the reader who gives his name as Tom, will have his comments marked in red:
Why should we assume that believers in a Unanimous Rule Democracy are in any way responsible? If I don’t, then I cannot be a member, can I? Where does this leave 99.99999 percent of the worlds population? Nice idea for a utopian community, but only that.
Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is simply a system of decision making for responsible individuals. I claim it has great advantages over:
Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.
These three systems control others with force. Rule by the MAJORITY coerces the MINORITY.
Unanimous Rule Consensus does not coerce others. But it does
require that those using be responsible. It is simply a tool. If you
understand and use a tool properly you gain the utility of the tool.
You don’t have to believe in it to use it. Unanimous Rule
Consensus is not a cause. It is not a religion. It is not a movement. It is just a tool.
So I propose a Win-Lose action, and you can veto it only if you propose a Win-Win action. Or you can keep veto-ing it until we all die. This sounds like an ultimatum in disguise to me. It has the appearance of righteousness but in no way assures a win-win.
Timothy-> Let us assume for a moment that you and I decide to move a heavy couch from one room to another. We form a group of two for the purpose of doing this because it is obvious to us both that we can’t move the couch separately. As we move this heavy object we communicate to be sure we are both winning. If one of us is losing we veto the action by saying put the couch down. Now if either of us keeps vetoing every plan of action then we won’t get the couch moved.
If we have no common goal then there is no basis for us to form a group.
Again, my proposal of Unanimous Rule Consensus is as an alternative to:
Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.
If these existing systems work better for you, you are welcome to use them. They are certainly easily found in our present world.
Interdependence already exists! What you are suggesting is actually a society INdependent of variety and diversity of opinion. We are already constrained by the needs and wants of the other, by virtue of the fact that interdependence is a REALITY, not something to be created.
Timothy-> I agree. Humans are an INTERdependent class of life.
The choice is adversary INTERdependence – I will force you to help me. Neutral INTERdependence – I will pay you to help me. Or, Synergic INTERdependence – I will help you and trust you to help me.
I claim Synergic INTERdependence is more powerful and less harmful to children and other small things.
Synergy is in the eye of the beholder. Losses can be percieved as wins in the light of synergy–and you are missing an important factor– ALL synergy is a loss. It is a loss of thought independence. “I” and “You” are lost in your definition of “US”.
Timothy-> I don’t see it that way. I expect we will have great diversity and individuality within synergic organizations. Reality is a continuum. We are both Humanity as Individuals and Humanity as Community. Synergic organization is designed to take care of both aspects of our identity.
In response to my statement:
Individuals within a committee are seeking to gain the majority of support. This takes time – sometimes a lot of time.
Tom wrote:
Majority support is the whole point of democracy as it exists… the example of japanese companies does not hold water because I cannot believe that any decision is unanimous among all the parties affected, much less the committee.
Timothy-> Perhaps you have never experienced unanimous agreement. It does occur and when it does it is very powerful. Because all members of the Unanimity are allied. They can act as one. We see this in a championship basketball team.
I am suggesting that if we use a system that seeks unanimity as an explicit goal we can harness that power.
In response to my statement:
If you honestly don’t know the best answer then the group must decide whether they should seek more information or accept the risk of deciding without the right answer. In a synergic group you are equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action. If you are wrong then you and your children may die.
Tom wrote:
All this means is that we are at the mercy of psycho-pseudo-scientists and environmental death-prophets…they will emerge and announce a win-lose based on the fear of death, they will not back down. There is no win-win when a handful of the party members have no handle on reality.
Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is a voluntary system of organization. One is invited to join the group. All individual loss is prohibited. If the group must sustain loss then the burden of that loss is distributed over the entire group.
There are No BOSSES. No KINGS. No DICTATORS.
If you want that kind of reality you need only return to:
Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.
These three systems control others with force. Rule by the MAJORITY coerces the MINORITY. If these existing systems work better for you, you are welcome to use them. They are certainly easily found in our present world.
In response to my definition:
“Co-OPERATION: Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses.”
Tom wrote:
There are sooo many more than two parties, in every single decision to be made. Have you taken this into account?
Timothy-> Yes I have. And, this is an excellent question. Synergic organization is best accomplished in small groups. Size is created by the grouping of groups. It would seem that this would require a great deal of complexity, but it does not. The explanation of how this system would work is the subject of another paper.
In response to my statement:
We can’t use a new invention until it is invented. The airplane was always possible. But no one could fly one until it was invented. Synergic organization has always been possible. But no one invented it until recently.
Tom wrote:
I don’t agree here either. The airplane was not always possible. The situation had to present itself where the propeller engine was possible first. So many other factors before it became a possibility. Synergic organization will be possible when we have lost all sense of what it is to be human–but not yet. (this is not as derogatory as it sounds–I am saying only that it is not possible while we are still imperfect beings–and of course I do not think it’s necessary to be imperfect.) Of course, if we were all perfect, this type of organization would emerge on its own.
Timothy-> No! Again Unanimous Rule Consensus is an invention. It is a system for making decisions and planning actions. Just as Robert’s Rules of Order are a system for making decisions.
It has to be invented. Just as we humans invented: the steam engine, the printing press, the electric light bulb, agriculture,
domestication of animals, automobiles, airplanes, computers, etc.. etc., etc..
None of these emerged on their own.
In response to my statement:
This problem is solved because we are dealing with individuals of integrity.
Tom wrote:
> HAHA…so DO you agree this is not possible! 🙂
Timothy-> Yes, I know this is a joke. But yes I do believe there are lots of individuals with integrity.
In response to my statement:
Synergic organizers will carefully invite members to join them. The whole idea is that we can be more together than we can be separately. Those who are not co-Operative will not be invited to join many groups.
Tom wrote:
This is a good way to promote tyranny. The whole point of our democracy is that we will not be kicked out if we disagree!!!!!!!
Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is part of Unanimous Rule Democracy. It is completely voluntary. There is no coercion. There is no force. If you want to use this system you are only required to co-Operate.
No one is required to use this system. You are still free to use the old ways.
Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.
In response to my statement:
None of these discussion groups are currently organized with any common goals in mind. We are attracted by common interests not goals. However, even here we see lots of examples where people help each other. Perhaps we should start some groups with some common goals.
Tom wrote:
Where do we find these goals? Individual goals are supposed to conflict! Even within ourselves there are conflicting goals. If there was any truth of a meaningful goal of humanity, we would already have the kind of groups you speak of. Solid goals adhered to by legions of robots is known as fundamentalist religion–and it’s a scary thing.
Timothy-> In the 1940s, the western world had the common goal to defeat a tyrant named Adolf Hitler. One historian summed up this period of history by describing the accomplishment of this goal as humanity’s “finest hour”.
I think there are lots of goals that would benefit Humanity as
Community. I would suggest. The end of crime. The cure of mental illness. The elimination of racism. Solving the Fossil Fuel Energy Crisis? These could serve as a starting place.
In response to my statement:
The Pyramids were build with Adversary help.
Tom wrote:
Look at the achievements through your 3-step example and see if you recognize anything absurd about it:
OK, the Great Pyramids were built with adversary help.
A step higher, Neutral help, we have the Eighth Wonder of the world, MacDonalds.
One step higher, Synergic Help, we have….well, no actual examples of this, beyond small family businesses and the example of small start-ups or partnerships which most often fail. The japanese example is close, but of course the japanese economy is on pins and needles at the moment. There is the mandatory socializing after work–mandatory socializing is always fun, isn’t it? 🙂
Timothy-> Yes, I agree with you that the examples of synergic organization we find in today’s culture are quite rare, and not yet very impressive.
However please realize that synergic organization has only occurred spontaneously and sporatically. There has never existed a SYNERGIC “Robert’s Rule of Order“. That is what I am in the process of developing.
In response to my statement:
In 1920, there were only 2 billion humans. If you didn’t like it here you could always go someplace else. The world was a big place. There was lots of room. Today there are 6 billion humans.
Tom wrote:
And there’s still lots of room.
Timothy-> I think that is wishful thinking. At the rate we are destroying and contaminating the Earth, there may be alot of room only if your preferred life style is similar to that of MAD MAX UNDER THUNDERDOME. ;>)
In response to my statement:
Where can you go to escape the actions of others? Today there are no separate solutions. We can either work together or we can die separately. That is our only choice.
Tom wrote:
I would like to choose both, and I don’t see how the two are linked. It seems to me that the whole point of working together is so that we can die separately, as opposed to mass graves.
And in response to the following comment made by another reader Arthur Noll on cancer:
“Those that shrink away at the slightest pain, are basically not ready to give for the overall good, they aren’t healthy.”
This is exactly what I mean when I say loss is important as well as gain. You shrink away from any tiny loss, and I don’t consider it healthy. You shrink away from it by:
Refusing to accept loss in any way (only by your standards of loss). Deciding to oust members of the party who would disagree. By defining an “interdependent” society independent from all who don’t fit in, you have really created an idea with no basis in reality.
Timothy-> Yes, the purpose of synergic organization is to reduce loss for all parties of the organization. But we will still sometimes have to lose. We don’t ourst members of group who disagree. We oust members of the party who don’t or can’t co-Operate. Unanimous Rule Consensus is not a party, not an organization, not a movement. It is simply a method for making group decisions. I claim it is a better system then Majority Rule Coercion.
Synergy is about winning. I want a world where I win, you win, humanity wins, and Earth wins.
In such a world, those who don’t fit in will be taken care of. In such a world the mentally unsound, the criminal psychopaths, the convicted felons, and even prisoners of war will find a safe place to either get well or else live there lives in safety.
Synergy is about helping people. Synergy is about not hurting people. So those humans who are dangerous will be cared for, but they won’t be allowed to hurt others.
I don’t see an interest in interdependence here. I only see an interest in special interest and power. This is nothing new…this is what all of the most corrupt governments in history have done. And they all sounded peachy keen just like this.
Well I guess sounding peachy keen is a start. Thanks for taking the time to read and think about my writings. I clearly need to improve my explanations so that my discoveries can be better understood.
I appreciate your help and the opportunity to respond to your comments.
Bound through synergy,
Timothy