enlightenment and secular death.

as some are aware there have been several enlightenments before 'western' culture's recent industrial revolution. the muslims had a immeasurable progress through the creation of elementary versions of natural selection, and moderate versions of al'jabr (now called algebra), amoung other less celebrated accomplishments. the greeks before them came up with aqueducts, geometry, and elementary steam power. earlier still there were aggricultural revolution(s) which changed the political and structural landscape to quite notable degrees. but when we think of the enlightenment it is the western boom, now coming to an end.

what was it about the various booms which created the amazing growth of industry, and how do the mistakes made effect the fruition of progress?

i believe the cultures began to plummet, when they got too proud to learn. the greeks and the muslims, like americans today, were vicariously proud of the accomplishments of their people. and they laid claim to knowledge unearned. they were educated to a degree by the learned, but proud rather than humbled by what they acquired/learned which wasn't dependent on their own labor. all due to the lack of arduous trial. i believe this was the cause due to the implications and cross pollination of pride making other view of less substance, more fertile. so by reaping the harvest of the society through cooperation lives were extended, and with them the fallacious views they portend.

in doing this they forgot their place, and the majority's leadership crumbled under the weight of the dogmatic zionism. right at the place where majority rule meets minority rights, the wrong minorities of more traditional fervor were the ones granted preference.

without fixing how we evaluate voting and merit, our secular society will likely choose the wrong parties for guidance. which will kill the blip of civility.

how should we handle power?

nonprofit insurance & inverted loans

the way insurance companies are run, there is a lot of bias on the grounds of risk, as well as on the grounds of profit. what if the grounds of profit were removed to a principle-percentile fee with additional costs solely for inflation?

should insurance companies be based on selling help upon a rainy day through the creation of fear, or provide the groundwork for abating the rainy day?

socialized networking creating gamified pseudo unions.

here is how it would work:

• insurance companies take monthly payments based upon a risk adjusted cost to consumer. the worse credit, and more destructive tendencies increase the payment so that for every expense, there is excess money coming in to cover it.
• because of the very top heavy nature of the business plan, the first payment(s) are non-refundable fees towards the creation of account in the system, and are the effective replacement for the per-month profit.
• limit the amount invested monthly into the nonprofit account to be logarithmic decay, this also filters out people who can't make the payments, all by making the first several payments large, and then taper off. part of the tapering off is a how long the person wants to pay to hit the limit.
• create a social game of a network which allows people to choose members (or groups) to 'reduce' their personal risk by 'blending' it with others. this creates an easier approach to corporate rates, as well as for unions, political movements, groups of friends, and families to offset the risk or cost   without lowering the affected credit gain.

what this in effect accomplishes is a sum or amalgamation of debt, natural social distribution of risk, and a limit to how much people "prepay for their loan". for example in health insurance the premiums are quite high even when you don't need anything, even when your demographic is one of the lowest risk groups. making it so people can talk about and share their hobbies while also backdoor analysising their  personal risk further through their personal disclosure. you can demarcate much higher risk people from the much lower risk. 

so men are 6% more risky than women? well if people are going to incur risk based on non-choice accounts they should also incur risk for things they truely love to do, and the communities for that activity should be the ones willing to foot the bill to some small degree. for example, if a company deals with the outdoors they should be able to donate a part of their profits for/to those negatively affected by the exercise of freedom. they could choose to donate for a capitalist warranty program, or they could choose to donate to offset medical or emergency costs for healthcare events which involve their market's major interest. this offsets immediate costs/risk for those doing the activity. also derivative products of safety certification (like driver's license for health care and car insurance) could be sold to businesses to reduce the risk associated with the concern.

all in all this allows people to:

•  save their money safely, and effectively, while designating it for purpose
• divert the total magnanamy of risk to the greater community, 
• locate and store large amounts of funds for anti-inflation investing in related public works reducing risk,
•  get allot of fees right off the bat.

it is literally corporate governance through post locale analysis of policy and the maintenance  of 'interest based' self categorization. it does slightly go against secular civility but should be acceptable.

making democracy work again

i can't tell the more technological ones but here are some involving voting and governance:

* rework democracy to have professional polling parties. holland has banks, another place should specialize in facilitating fair elections.

* rework democratic ballots so the governance is entirely bottom up. (get supporting math structure later called "fail conditions")

* facilitate easier ballot addendum to not require schmucks to get signatures via kick-starter style site allowing both donations and signatures for a cause. with a public running balance for nonprofit community improvement projects as well as the classic forecasted fundraising goal.

* international mandate for elections/voting weekly/monthly within countries claiming to be democratic to the UN. if nothing else is up to question, it is a satisfaction survey.

* greater government promotion of companies and allowance for government to compete with private industry when private industry is being ineffective. basically, large cities should have parking lots (perhaps requiring fees).

* separate ballots/articles for people running for office from the main issues and concerns of the people.  for example, every politician wants to fix the economy. you vote first on priorities and then later on vote on who you think can do it.

* multi layer disclosed governance goals by the lower leadership, or chosen by voters, with deadlines and the numbers used in finding the expenses. do we as a people want to go into space? fine. do we want to automate agriculture? fine. want to get renewable energy? fine... whatever the government wants to do the question remains- what can i mathematically grade 'your' performance on? if you have control, when will your proposal be done, how much risk is there it will go above cost? what is the break down of the cost structure by component? also in the grading of performance, part of the election should be choosing 'fail' criteria under which the elected person is ousted rendering impeachment quaint.

* add to ballots fail criteria based on campaign promises. it will replace and automate the impeachment process. allow additional fail criteria to be added to the ballot. in effect add short term measures/proposals which are only used for one electoral term.



* in the project proposal economic concerns should be taken into consideration including things like whether the government will pay continually or cash on delivery with adjustment for interest due to loans taken out, also where the money comes from.

* multiple pages on the individuals running including private investigator reports, and related work experience accounts by those who worked with him/her. bluntly a politician should be able to politick without being in office.



in essence, i want allot more control of what the government does, how it does it, how much it costs and greater precision in how much budget the reward is worth. put another way rather than voting for high speed rail: yea, nay. it would be better to vote "___ is the max worth of the project ($0 being in effect 'hard' nay, and price lower than projected expense being 'soft' nay). the money for the project comes from [list]. if proposal estimate isn't within ___% of the proposed price or ___% of max worth, there is breach of contract. making the rest of cost come from ____ .

should money buy votes?

... let's break it down a bit to look at the underlying forces...

why is it legal/relevant to become 'public demonstrators' of a cause? is it just me or do allot of demonstrators seem not befitting the arguments they propose? momentarily take the tea party, occupy wall street, national association of women, or the athiest convention proponents. some of the people present in any of those movements/conventions have ideas and concerns which are really articulate, and possibly/arguably well founded enough to warrant public exposure. however many conventions operate on a fallacy focused on internal popular views, which creates a circle jerk or think tank rather than an honest attempt to make views public and withstand scrutiny. the formal speakers at such conventions are generally from one sole side of the discussion. also many of the non-formal speakers are baited into inarticulate Q&A (due to the questions not being answered by the formal speakers) and they often aren't able to present their argument/response in a coherent/consistent manner. this means the people who do the noble act of exposing themselves to the opposition's opinion can get really mixed results in how well the opposition is supported/articulated/argued, regardless of its actual merit.

technology could help the public discussion without being abrasive to individuals/groups. it could make a "C-span 2". which deals solely in the formal rhetoric of non-representative (not elected) political bodies/movements to allow public discussion rather than the inarticulate misunderstandings presented by the popular boobs of congress. at present one can't call congress out on the publicly presented misunderstandings because there isn't the medium, and the average person on any topic knows about as much as their congressmen, which is why they like the congressmen.

when two people try to discuss the formal or colloquial interpretation of what the other advocates, hostilities will fall and falter. the other side isn't "them" as much as "Francine". this occurs because the arguments are focused not at personal success via 'winning' the debate but which person supports and defends their position best. put another way, a debate should be two highly articulate people having a public conflict attempting to marginalize the other argument's veracity through a doctoral dissertation level of criticism and humor. the audience should be able to tell who is playing the straight-man (comedic reference) during the debate. "do you think we came from monkeys?! is your grandmother a monkey?" should be responded to with "she isn't quite that old", and then a discussion about what evolution says in simple terms. science denialists in general would best be handled in this lighthearted manner.
 "if that chart means global warming is true, then why is there snow?"
 "that is like asking why it is shaped like a hockey stick rather than a bikini bottom, after all it is getting warmer and the bikini have to go somewhere, so why not the chart? climate change is a bit more complex than turning on a stove..."

see what i'm advocating is secular discussion where the more prevalent views get the 21st century soap boxes. this is the opposite of not buying a product because you disagree with the sentiments uttered, because the opposition get a chance to defend themselves. one might argue that by investing in propoganda the major players might be playing a different game, and to be fair, they are. the game probably isn't the game you think. in business you want customers, advocating slightly controversial topics creates consumer loyalty. remember the backlash of oreo's gay support and the double backlash against the 'idiots' claiming to boycott oreo? Oreo and nabisco made a calculated move about how consumer loyalty and demographics were shifting. it wasn't a haphazzard support of a minority view, that would have been a bad investment. similarly the investments in anti gay propaganda was the same type of move but with opposite demographic support. it was likely a similar 0.000001% of profit expense to create brand loyalty and get more money through sales.

 it is something that various 'bad companies' might shift on, and by blacklisting them into having to maintain the position to target that same demographic, rather the change, one might retard the social progress. the idea of this app/program is bad on every possible level of comprehension.

...

here is a fitting personal example, you are probably reading the proposal with the bias that the 'news' and advertising has a ton of swing power/potential. you likely also note, as money can buy that exposure to ideas, and exposure to an idea has more impact on support of the idea than merit-- so one can effectively buy votes and elections. but should they be able to? and does the attrition attempt fix the problem of the rich having way more impact on elections than the thinking poor, or does it fight fire with fire through a 'scorched earth policy'? that fix is precisely what my highly stylized secular debate channel focuses upon.

the 'exposure increases sales' concept assumes that 'exposure to ideas/preferences' is a valid commodity which can be put up for sale, and regulated.  however, one can do the arguably far barter of exposure to your own preferred ideology right along side whatever is popularly considered to compete with it on that topic. as long as the speakers address the problems one another notices, we retain our secular identity. without it, as the program and political advertising portend, we become over enamored with tribal corporatism.

what i advocate isn't a very dangerous political move. it isn't an attempt to starve out someone's voice through attrition; it isn't a literal act of economic war. it is literally the antithesis by sharing the same stage and seeing if their arguments could be better than my own by earnestly asking questions and pointing out potential problems. ex. "how is one pro-life and pro-war?"

so, people would have to donate to set up a website and later a TV channel to broadcast the discussions. to increase viewership one would have to lower the impact of under-schooled (in comedy at least) intellectuals who take themselves too seriously by having comedians or bands do non-related material in breaks. this makes the lectures themselves 'commercial like' based on topical issues (think super bowel commercials).  the funding would have to be "crowd sourced" complete with PBS style pledge breaks and preferential treatment to people who pay to subscribe to the channel. one would also need to develop a psuedo-siri to get themes/topics for discussion, rather up to date.

the question then is one of societal character, not utopian ideal. do we as a people want to pay a fair amount to do things right? or would we rather pay little and try to take the easy way out? replace the bridge, or fix with duct-tape?

do we care more about being right, or the 'Truth', or progress through honest dialogue? there will be people calling one another an idiot, and some will call the claims argued 'simply preposterous' but it is a far better method of allowing intercourse than our diatribe based debauchery, let alone the program proposal. and it is far more noble to have people try to hear the arguments against them and fail civility, than to pretentiously argue from ignorance through the backhanded attacks on largely disinterested corporations.

...

using the software is not to be steamrolled politically. to declare that marketing is so contemptible you will not buy a marketed product. you become 'one million moms', de facto.

to fix the system we must fix the system. to fix the system we can't take the worst of the existing system; copy, invert and paste it, and claim it is now better. the systemic fix has to replace a large part of the system; it can't merely add a single small element.

...

an alternative to _intellectual_ property

intellectual property came from the french revolution, back then it was called 'copyright' at the time the workers were revolting because they felt enslaved by the managerial-class. they argued that only labor can be monetized, and that capital- equipment could not be owned.

in this argument they also presented the idea of copyright, which could be rephrased as author/printer's rights to sell the fruits of labor, and to control the labor of others to the slight extent to allow the cost of content creation to be recouped.

the idea was formed from the ancient idea of thought crime, and if you had to own up to thought crimes, you should be able to own the fruits as well.

since that time long ago, copyright has changed to a degree. when the United states adopted copyright law they made a crucial change. they limited copyright to printer's works, and created a separate identity for patents; which eventually with more nuanced categories bore a new unifying term for copyright- intellectual property. one of the most important changes was they removed a french copywriten article from protection, in america, math was not protectable.

this act of leaving out math was exacerbated with the addition of loopholes empowering education professionals being able to infringe whatever they want. this destroyed education as being a valid demographic to aim important products at.

so how do we redesign intellectual property?

artistic property for originality
protect manifestations from theft- from the physical removal of possession.

brand property for corporate authenticity
people have this irritating drive for authenticity, allot of copyright is for this point/purpose so have a law or group of laws dedicated to this.

design property for device integrity.
basically patents 2.0 but not open to the public, and without exception for types of devices; math is covered.

logistic property for management design
basically this is property of certain relationship flows. for example how one shares and distributes labor across an organization.
another example would be a phone number being linked to your name would be your logistic property. it is about linked lists, and object oriented development.
first register gets to declare whether it is open or closed source. defaults to open until specified, all flows/logistics published in journals are/become open source.