TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?

How do you obtain common ground in an ideological argument? What methods have proved fruitful in the past? Is there even a solution?

I am still working through Rousseau’s Origins of Inequality but, this statement stood out.

“Thus, as the most powerful or the most miserable considered their might or misery as a kind of right to the possessions of others, equivalent, in their opinion, to that of property, the destruction of equality was attended by the most terrible disorders. Usurpations by the rich, robbery by the poor, and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed the cries of natural compassion and the still feeble voice of justice, and filled men with avarice, ambition and vice.”

What methods do you use to sway the idealist who in reality means no harm yet causes harm with each keystroke?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 13 2014: So, what if hit things from a different angle?

    We already have corporations that have principled hiring (i.e. no asshats), including a larger number of co-operative ones

    And we know that part of the problem with 'big' issues is we're not biologically designed to care about (or even KNOW about) more than a hundred and fifty people or so.


    And we know that when it comes to productivity, intrinsic motivation is king.

    So what if you create a corporation that's designed to expand as quickly as possible while encouraging people to lives that don't play off our weaknesses so much? Something like this?

    (Awesome Incorporated: Employee/Citizen/Owner's handbook)

    While there's no 'perfect' solution, we're not finding many flaws in that approach (though it is just a rough draft, life's been complicated)
    • Feb 13 2014: Hi William, thanks for joining in the conversation.

      I skimmed over the E/C/Owners handbook (will read more this weekend), from what I have read so far is this idea one of a global corporation which replaces segmented governments?
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2014: Yup. It may be better described as a framework, because other than raising the bar on civilization internally it's designed to be extremely flexible, with people choosing between whole-life solutions that are designed to cluster those that get along well together while pointing everyone who joins in a very basic positive direction.

        The capitalism-abusing angle is more to speed the transition along than anything else, and the idea of an uber-skunkworks is a whole lot more marketable than the more vague 'enable us to break away from this mess in a useful way' idea that's at the core.

        That approach is also really new (a couple of weeks old maybe) so I'm sure it could use some refining, I was mostly hoping to get enough pieces in a couple of small readable documents that it would be readable yet still contain enough information to encompass what kind of has to be a pretty thorough set of solutions.

        I do really like the idea of hitting the people with resources where they have few defenses (i.e. by being completely honest and sincere and treating them like regular human beings). I know from some past experience that there are those that will find that refreshing if not positively habit forming.

        • thumb
          Feb 14 2014: William,

          I think I may have been working on a theme that is pretty much related to you topic. I will be more than happy to exchange ideas and opinions to where we can pave the way to successfully apply those ideas.
    • Feb 15 2014: William,

      I too have been working on a theme that is pretty much related... please consider the ways to enrich each one and each other... will be looking into the document... and will post additional comments...

      My two cents thus far would be to rephrase the statement:

      One other thing that may stand out is a general lack of negativity.
      One other thing that may stand out is a general 'inclination' towards positivity. Yea it's a bias in how we think / feel act to show preference for someone and something good, benevolent, desirable, beautiful etc...

      Edited to add that my two cents extends to revising the document to ensure a positive framing... for example
      I think the idea is for it to be a dynamic document, at least for a while... We always seek to keep going including additional enriching stuff that's how we work to move forward... see whats there and what ought to be there and do what ought to be done by doing it
    • Feb 15 2014: William,

      Please advice what you think I ought to do given the following situation:
      - In principle I find the fundamental idea of the document good
      - in practice I find certain framings of the document 'questionable'

      I understand the stand put forth while hold that there is actually a better stand to hold.
      - In principle I find everyone would want to embrace the better stand to hold
      - I know from past experience how some react when presented certain ideas especially when it pushes them to embrace changes that they rather not do.
      - So rather than do the work and then be accepted/rejected I would like to invert the situation.

      I know the veracity of the statement "Nobody has any power over anybody else that’s not given by consent, and that consent can always be immediately revoked".... hardly reflects the actual reality being live in ... In fact to me its self evident that individuals and groups do have power over others that isn't based nor given by consent. To me its evident that whomever is right holds the right to be heard while whomever is wrong doesn't hold such right. I assume that you are the kind of individual who understand to focus on the issues at hand rather than who decides them issues. I wonder if you are willing to accept that there are individuals and groups that do have power and influence over individuals and groups? For that matter some individuals may have more power and influence than others? I think this is a vital issue/value to consider.
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2014: I think you summarized where we'd run into some concerns fairly well. Nicely observed!

        Honesty, when it comes to any sort of principles we're not individually very legalistic. . . rather we tend to think in scenarios and stories. . . and with how much variety there is even in how we interpret phrases I kind of figured it was a fools errand to depend on them much.

        So instead I like to think of them as stage setters, and I think it's the whole 'I'm making this commitment as part of getting a job and I'd hate to get fired!' angle that makes them valuable. We don't hire people who struggle with the concept. We worry about those who DO when we run out of those who DON'T. (Not that we're neglecting anyone, but for the sake of argument . .in the first stage we're focused on the already converted)

        With respect to power and consent, I'm a very big fan of putting a firm line out there because that's where the bar is SUPPOSED to be set on an individual basis, and that's something people should always be able to fall back on if things have gone horribly awry.

        That doesn't mean that groups and individuals won't have plenty of interactions, and there are layers of consent and we frequently give others 'power' temporarily. . . that's how we get economy of scale, after all!

        What it DOES mean is that consent line is the final straw. There is no ability to be TOLD by somebody else to hurt anybody else, because you're also not capable of giving up that right (in the Awesome, Inc. view).

        And that's where the mind hack is in that one, it's a right that you're allowed to give up, thereby removing one of the most common rationalizations for doing horrible things in this world.

        That being said, there are probably even better approaches, but I had to start somewhere! :)
        • Feb 15 2014: William,

          I like thinking in scenarios and stories. . . and with how much variety there is even in how we interpret phrases I kind of figured it be a wise errand to depend on individual principles to guide, and facilitate all sort of stuff.

          I woke up with a rather simplistic idea related to the stage setters and rules of the play:
          It goes like this:
          Act 1 - Somebody wants and seek agreements
          Act 2 - Someone enters and chooses to agree or disagree
          Act 3 - Somebody agrees with someone to agrees to agree or agrees to disagree
          Finnalle - Someone reconsider whether they choose to agree or disagree

          Note that that: be there agreement or disagreement with someone, somebody wants, seeks, and attains the agreement... whether it be to agree or to disagree depends on what someone chooses. If someone wants agreements they better choose to agree.

          I noticed a key idea in your statement above:
          "making this commitment as part of getting a job"
          Note that the word 'commitment' == the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc. a conscious agreement and/or engagement that 'restricts' freedom of action... it's given by consent, and that consent can always be immediately revoked (though that would change the state or quality of being dedicated to the cause).

          Curiously Awesome Incorporated open door policy implies that there isn't someone or something who hires individuals ... those who want to work there, work there... those who don't want to work there --- well they will still work there; under the illusion of working elsewhere or under some deception of not working there. Of course everyone who works there consents to follow the guidelines to work there one way or another.

          I too am a big fan of consent and having a definite firm line that individuals ought be able to choose ... I choose and prefer agreements ... if someone wants to agree or disagree... I will agree and insists on agreements ! (for an agreement is what disagrees with disagreements)
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2014: Oh! Just something to add!

        None of that means there aren't lots of ways for options to be set up that reward dedication to commitments, after all that can be a very valuable trait. So there's room for journeyman type systems, achievements (heh), and all the rest. Those would all just be options, valued as appropriate rather than turned into debt hammers.

        Lots of ideas were left out because it's been more a drive to get things read, y'know? I've got no real media skills, and there's lots of subtle interplay that it's difficult to get into without turning it into a novella. I was going to actually do another post here asking for help now that we've got something more specific (since that was invariably the big issue last time around)

        I think we all have to deal with that in one way or another. . . our real vision is too broad in scope and filled with 'obvious' things to be expressed in it's entirety, but when we get around to providing detail we risk alienating those who had similar visions but took different paths and also getting so attached to one particular elegant nuance that we disregard approaches without it.

        I've tried as much as possible to keep that in my head over the last couple of years, but I still catch myself there plenty. This is HARD! :)
        • Feb 15 2014: What it DOES mean is that consent line is the final straw. There is an ability to be TOLD by somebody else what to do - if someone chooses to do it or not; it's someone's choice! In other words somebody can invite someone to the dance/banquet/play AND someone has to consent to the invitation by doing what is required to dance/banquet/play. The thing is that everyone be at the dance/banquet/party some perceive it and some still have to learn to perceive it.

          Each is also capable of giving up and picking up rights (in the Awesome, Inc. view). In actuality each holds the rights what they give up is their will to use them rightfully. "that's where the mind hack be" some invite you to choose to do something and you choose to do it rather than doing something better... the idea "it's a right that you're allowed to give up" invites you to give up a right rather than use it rightfully! I will skip going into the other ideological topics surrounding that notion that are included in your post by saying what I rather focus on wonderful thing in this world!

          when we get around to providing detail each will choose to deal with that in one way or another, some will choose to agree some will choose to disagree some will choose to 'alienate' themselves (or more appropriately how to a-lien-ate --- I just discovered how lien fits in there perfectly) now how to put at a distance - as it ought to be. I am ok with those who had similar visions and took different paths and also get so attached to one particular elegant nuance that we can basically disregard approaches with it. what be a bit of a concern be those who get attached to particular nuances that just aren't beneficial to them nor others. The ones who choose 'disagreements' rather than seek 'agreements'.

          I will agree and insists on agreements ! (for an agreement is what actually gives each what they desire). Someone said in order to change, the system has to change --- in reality we be the ones who change stuff - us things

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.