The ETHICS Project
Posted on: June 04, 2008Written by: UWSA Staff
E
LECTRONICT
OWNH
ALLI
NITIATIVEC
OMPREHENSIVES
YSTEM(A "grassroots" project)
"Truth never damages a cause which is just." MAHATNA GHANDI
Principal Author: Robert J. Kuniegel
US Mail: RR3 BOX 3272, Moscow, Pennsylvania 18444
Compiled & Edited by: Robert B. Reinhardt
EMAIL: breinhar@access.digex.net
WWW: http://access.digex.net/~breinhar/ethics.html
Version 1 - August 3, 1995
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.1 ASPECT 1
2.2 ASPECT 2
2.3 ASPECT 3
2.4 ASPECT 4
3.0 From An Idea To Reality: The STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION
3.1 STAGE 1 - GENERAL SPECIFICATION STAGE
3.1.1 Opening Remarks to the "LADY LIBERTY" Edition of the ETHICS Proposal
3.1.2 People only need 4 things to overcome ignorance
3.1.3 Socratic Reasoning roots to the ETHICS idea
3.1.4 Story of the evolution of the ETHICS project
3.2 STAGE 2 - GAIN RECOGNITION STAGE (this stage has prominence today 5-31-95)
3.2.1 Letter from former UWSA Executive Director V.B. Corn, October 12, 1994
3.3 STAGE 3 - "SHOW ME" STAGE
3.4 STAGE 4 - TO BE DETERMINED (there will be sub-stages to the show me stage)
3.5 STAGE 5 - TO BE DETERMINED (there will be sub-stages to the show me stage)
3.6 STAGE 6 - IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
4.0 Discussion (Questions & Answers)
4.1 General merit or logic of the proposal
4.2 How will people afford to participate in the ETHICS program?
4.3 How is ETHICS different from existing Internet Email Lists and USENET Newsgroups?
4.4 Who gets to say what is the "correct attitude" and what actions are valid and which are invalid?
4.5 How will this get through the barrier of access to mass media?
4.6 How do you keep institutional biases out of the newsletters and State issues boards?
4.7 How do you keep track of who has a vested interest in one outcome or another?
4.8 How about what other reform and liberty minded groups are doing?
4.9 Polls and dealing with public Apathy
4.10 Will there be any way to make sure that all sides get equal time?
4.11 Does "educate" mean "condition" to a pre-determined view?
4.12 How can we begin to build and prototype this system?
4.13 How will the system ensure people have access to all the facts needed?
4.14 How are you going to keep the ethics review board ethical?
5.0 DISCUSSION WITH STUART BURNS
5.1 ETHICS - Under Critical Examination Shines Even Brighter
5.2 ETHICS - The Stuart Burns Essay
5.3 The ETH Project
5.3.1 Electronic Town Hall Project - Project Definition Statement
5.3.2 ETH Project Study Group - Generic Terms of Reference
5.3.3 ETH Project Study Group Head - Responsibility Statement
5.3.4 ETH Project Study Group - Terms of Reference (Title = "Philosophical Foundations")
6.0 News and evolution of the ETHICS movement
6.1 Current Participation in the ETHICS movement
6.1.1 ETHICS Founder and Principal Author
6.1.2 ETHICS Project Innovators and Administrators (4)
6.1.3 WELCOME ABOARD NAMES for the "ETHICS Information Age Monument" (21)
6.1.4 Participants In The Prototype Study Group - Money & Economics (18)
6.1.5 Additional Acknowledgements (4)
6.2 Who and How To Contact For More Information
6.3 Weekly Report Summaries
6.3.1 May 27, 1995 Report
6.3.2 June 6, 1995 Report
6.3.3 June 12, 1995 Report
6.3.4 June 17, 1995 Report
6.3.5 June 24, 1995 Report
6.3.6 July 3, 1995 Report
6.3.7 July 11, 1995 Report
6.3.8 July 16, 1995 Report
6.3.9 July 24, 1995 Report
6.3.10 July 30, 1995 Report
7.0 References
The purpose of this document is to gather and chronicle the combined efforts of the grassroots volunteers who have contributed to the idea, design, and building of the ETHICS concept in order to completely document the ETHICS project. It is hoped that current volunteers as well as newcomers to this work may find this document useful in learning what is currently being proposed, what has been discussed, and how to contact the project team in order to get involved.
All material in this document are direct quotes from electronic mail exchanged and announcements made from the project founder Bob Kuniegel, throughout the course of the development. Please write to Bob Kuniegel via postal mail or electronic mail to follow-up with any questions, ideas, or interest in joining the project. See Section 6 for contact information.
The original authors of the material contributed herein retain all their rights to their own work. Minimal editing has been done in order to preserve the authenticity and to preserve the ambiance of the "interchange" that took place on the Internet among the participants. This document is merely a compilation of that "interchange."
It is anticipated that this ETHICS "book" will be a living and working document. As such it will be under constant review, with new versions possibly being created as frequentlt as monthly. The most up-to-date version will always be available "online" on the Internet at the ETHICS WWW Home Page address: "http://access.digex.net /~breinhar/ethics.html".
Best Regards,
Bob Reinhardt (Editor)
2.0 The 4 Aspects of the ETHICS Proposal
Introduction
Mr. Perot has given the American people a job to do for ourselves. It is time to start that job in earnest. The proposal that follows meets the general specifications which Mr. Perot has requested. If you agree or disagree with the proposal your honest input is needed. This is a project for "WE THE PEOPLE" as a whole, not one person or a small group's job. [2]
A Real Contract For America
I pledge to build an information system that produces unbiased facts about what ever issues are important to Americans. We the people, will build such a system because we long for a chance to examine all arguments for and against issues that affect our lives and our country. We long for the chance to take part in a meaningful debate system that produces arguments on both sides of issues so that others can determine if our concerns are valid. We will make the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM a new and different kind of educational force that finds out what people think about issues when they have all the facts. Ross Perot has given us this opportunity. We accept this challenge to build a system that finds out what is good for America while maintaining the highest of ethical standards. [2]
Most important is the ethical mission statement. It should include the UWSA mission statement, but it should go farther so that it specifically outlaws violence, bigotry and other anti-social activities. That is what will govern the peoples actions and help them maintain the highest of ethical standards. If these standards are compromised the individual or group or issue will be dropped from receiving any UWSA recognition along with the loss of what ever other network help UWSA can offer to the study groups which want ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL polling status. The criteria used to determine how an issue can receive ETH polling status must be carefully considered. The ETH poll would involve TV presentation of facts plus concerns related to the issue, then participating members would phone to register a yes or no. The results would be tabulated by voting district. This type of electronic poll could be used on a local level, for example in a school district or on the national level. The ETH is a tool to educate and to evaluate educated opinions. [2]
Second and of equal importance is the way issues can gain recognition as a study group issue. The only way to keep an issue from the silencing effect of powerful people is to say that any issue can have a study group charter as long as the group meets the standards set by the mission statement. Just because UWSA grants a study group charter, in no way means that UWSA supports the issue in one way or another. That support may or may not come later. This open enrollment of study groups is different in that we welcome study groups of opposite positions, so that if the study group can define their position, they will begin to debate the issue in a formal and well documented way. There are many aspects to this section of the debating procedure that will help produce real facts minus the spin doctors effect on the issues. This is by far the most complex part and will require loads of work and revamping as UWSA strives toward perfection. [2]
Provide a network service to UWSA members. Just like Mr. Perot wanted to bring like-minded people (doctors) together to produce an alternative health care plan for debate, any UWSA member who will promote the spirit of the ethical mission statement should have a chance to be put in contact with people of similar interests regardless of what issue they wish to study. This proposal calls for a study group listing in the State chapterâs newsletter. Interested members would call the State issues board to get registered as a study group. They will receive rules for becoming chartered as a study group under a particular issue. There will also need to be rules for each group to keep a roster of people and records of meetings which would be used to make sure in some manner that the highest of ethical standards plus the format of procedures were followed by the study group. The national newsletter should insert the State newsletter in it's quarterly issue. This would make it possible for States to produce and mail a less expensive newsletter. (I know several State Directors have requested the insert. At one point it looked like it might happen but where the idea is today I do not know). [2]
Develop a multi-level debate system where you can have small local groups, then larger groups, then regional groups, a State group, regional State groups, etc. These groups would form around particular issues. They could hold debates independent of each other. But they would share information in both directions. Issues could have just a local debate group but if the issue is important others study groups will span out. Documenting arguments and answers given at debates will be central to a debate group's mission. It is in this documenting process where people will learn to trust facts generated by other debate groups, working on the same issue, which they have not participated in. [2]
The saying that fits the usefulness of this sub-aspect of knowing the procedures which other study groups use is: "If you do not know diamonds know your jeweler." Today, before the advent of the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL, we have no jeweler to trust to give us the real facts about issues. How do we tell who has a vested interest or who buys into someone else's story spun by a spin doctor. This job is enormous, but if we see the vision we can make it happen. [2]
Agree, disagree, add to, or take away from this proposal. But letâs get started building the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM, so that we do not lose the chance to leave a better America for our children. [2]
3.0 From An Idea To Reality: The STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION
The way I look at ETHICS and how others see ETHICS often is a little different. When I speak about what ETHICS is I see an invention which will evolve as time passes. Therefore I am in a constant battle for words to define it in today's terms. I see it as what it could be 10, 20, 50, and 100 years from now. Ross had stated we were building something to leave the next generation, therefore I believe it is only natural that I see it long range. If it is something which can re-unite UWSA, and I believe it is, it will need to be something that can solve many types of diverse problems. I have not found one complaint by UWSA members that ETHICS could not deal with. Since ETHICS is designed to solve problems, and it is the real thing--not an imitation or a gimmick, its value can be shown for a wide range of circumstances, just as I have been demonstrating. I must sound a little like Henry Ford when he was trying to explain how the automobile could be used in so many ways to improve life as they knew it back then. [1]
This is not a project for one person or a small group of people. ETHICS needs your voice so that we can leave the next generation something other then a multi-trillion dollar debt. A 32 cent stamp and a few sentences of support or an e-mail is all that it will take for us to get the recognition we need to bring the people aboard that we need to build ETHICS. But, I have been noticing people on the sidelines who say they support the idea yet have not stood up to be counted on the official roster. They do not know that every voice on the official roster makes the peoples voice louder and the dream closer to reality. This is not a spectator sport. There are some very powerful people that want to keep the political game just the way it is. If the people are going to have a voice then we need people to stand up and be counted as people who say they want a voice under ETHICS. If someone reading this is watching from the sidelines please be aware that the quicker the people have a voice the quicker we will balance the budget. [1]
One of the main struggles I will deal with is to help guide ETHICS to the implementation stage. At the time we implement ETHICS it will be well defined in its information gathering procedures. As we move toward implementation we will be in a process of defining components of ETHICS. My job as I see it today will be to keep the procedures which will define how ETHICS will work from being adopted until we have sufficient input from the study groups. Plus, I must take care in solving problems which occur that may inhibit the study groups from coming up with the best procedures. But, I must not be so careful as to let destructive forces cause damage to the ETHICS MOVEMENT. I intend to let necessity guide my reasoning and I have let it be known that anything I toss out to the innovators is subject to change if someone can give a good reason to reverse a directive. [1]
I want to try and add some clarity to the process which ETHICS is going to go through. The following are some of the stages which ETHICS will go through to reach implementation. Do not think of the stages as when one stage ends the next starts. Think of them in terms that a stage will be more prominent at a given time and the other stages will overlap. No stage will be closed until implementation is achieved. [1]
3.1 STAGE 1 - GENERAL SPECIFICATION STAGE
The prominent part of this stage is past but the general specifications are still open for discussion. [1]
3.1.1 Opening Remarks to the "LADY LIBERTY" Edition of the ETHICS Proposal
A Mother's Day Gift to " LADY LIBERTY." [2]
The long overdue First Edition of the ETHICS Project is here. This stage took one year and five months (1 year, 5 months). A number of Americans helped write this edition with their comments and have gained a place in history as pioneers entering the "INFORMATION AGE". [2]
The next hurdle for the ETHICS Project is to have UWSA NATIONAL adopt ETHICS as the peoples "VOICE." This is a simple task to plan. It will be a test of a process which will show others how powerful an "INFORMED VOICE" can be. The informed poll in this test will be almost like the informed poll which will be generated from an operational ETHICS Project. [2]
When enough people read this edition and respond to me by e-mail or US mail, Dallas will hear "OUR VOICE" and adopt ETHICS. MY ADDRESS:
ROBERT KUNIEGEL, RR3 BOX 3272, MOSCOW, PA. 18444. [2]
I pledge to everyone who responds in favor of the ETHICS Project, whether you are a member of UWSA or not, that your names will be engraved in a monument as a FOUNDING VOICE OF THE ETHICS INFORMATION AGE." You must include a few sentences with your response to prove you did indeed read the proposal. This is not about following someone that tells you it is a good idea. You must make that determination after you read it so that your voice is an informed voice. That is where the power of a real voice is derived. [2]
The last names will be accepted for the monument on the day UWSA NATIONAL hears "OUR VOICE" and adopts ETHICS. [2]
3.1.2 People only need 4 things to overcome ignorance
1. The opportunity to compare what is logical against what is based on ignorance. Example: a balanced budget verses deficit spending. [2]
2. The time to lay all the arguments out in order of importance. [2]
3. Interested people to lay out the arguments, and interested people to say which are logical and which lack merit based on the information presented. [2]
4. A system which puts these 3 simple principles together (listed above). [2]
This is what the ETHICS PROJECT does. Play your part in helping society overcome the ignorance in government decision making. All you need to do to make a difference is read the ETHICS PROJECT package and say if you think it has merit or if you think it does not. [2]
3.1.3 Socratic Reasoning roots to the ETHICS idea
Dialogue between Bob Moneymaker and Bob Kuniegel, June 16, 1995 [4]
>To Bob K:
This is very enlightening. You have opened a very "tight-fisted" mind by illuminating the little-known area of Socratic Reasoning. The idea has come to me that maybe it would be good for all interested parties to receive a suggestion to read on what ETHICS is based. Too few understand the need for courtesy when using Socratic questioning. To me, the effort to construct a Socratic question is an education in itself. However, courtesy is often forgotten. Why not give us all the title of the book, or books, you gained from? [4]
>To Bob$$$:
The book which I became intrigued by was "Great Dialogues Of Plato" translation by W.H.D. Rouse (1984 edition). Most people only read parts of the work. I read it from cover to cover many times because, I saw so many things in it that related to the 1992 election. It described the different ways people twisted what Socrates was saying and it was parallel to the way Ross was being treated. Then I started looking at it from a different perspective. He was a man on a mission the same as many UWSA members are on a mission. People labeled him because they said he agitated them. The same as I was being labeled. Therefore I started looking at the story from a vantage point of being in his shoes. That really opened up to me what people had missed. The people who were agitated were people with closed minds. The first philosophy college paper that I wrote in over 20 years received a 100 (something the professor did not hand out lightly). It was titled "Guilt Found At 180 Degrees" (UWSA was mentioned in the paper also). The man was not guilty of anything. People have been caught up in what happened to the people with closed minds and have overlooked what the man was really saying or so it seems to me. [4]
3.1.4 Story of the evolution of the ETHICS project
Dialogue between Florida Radio Show Host Tony Hernandez and Bob Kuniegel; background history of the evolution of the ETHICS project. [9]
I will do may best to answer the first part but I am not sure where you would like me to start. So I will give you a quick overview. As for the Radio show it would be an honor. [9]
My contribution, to the ETHICS Project, is smaller then many people may think. Everything which is in ETHICS has come from someone else. Therefore I will try and hit the points you may be interested in. But this is just a quick rundown of some of the things which transpired to bring ETHICS to where it is today. [9]
Most people would consider me a quiet person because I never seemed to have a lot to talk about. Then Ross Perot came along and started talking about things that I am interested in. I have been involved since mid-1992 to try and change things which need to be changed. [9]
I volunteered to work the phone banks, driving 40 minutes to the Pa.'s State 92 Perot office during the election campaign. I spoke with hundreds of people from across the State of Pa. I gave up the phone work at the state office to go back to my community the week before the election. I polled people on my own outside of malls, to get a chance to talk to about another 1000 people. [9]
Later on I was listening to Ross on Larry Kingâs Radio Show when Darla Keller called in and asked what could be done at College campuses. Ross said that we should start UWSA clubs. You need to be a student at the University of Scranton to start a club. I am employed there in the Public Safety Dept. I had an associate degree from a junior college. So I enrolled and started a UWSA CLUB. That was the start of ETHICS in a strange way. The first class I took was one I had to repeat because I received a "D" at Keystone Junior College in philosophy over 2 decades before (which I never agreed with because I like philosophy, but that is another story). [9]
The philosophy course I had to repeat (and aced) laid the ground work for the ETHICS proposal. Ross has said we need to maintain the highest of ethical standards. One of the highest of ethical standards is to keep an open mind when searching for MERIT. The way that ties into the ETHICS project is that ETHICS does not pre-judge any issue before the people interested in the issue have a fair chance to present the issue in the best possible manner. Even then the ETHICS Project does not judge the issue. ETHICS is a provider of information and it makes use of all the American people's talent in providing that information. There is more to the way ETHICS deals with issues. But, everything is built around a few simple concepts. I go into those in my latest essay which is due out shortly. We have other essays on file on the WWW (see Section 7) that can better explain some of the inner workings of ETHICS). [9]
From that mountain at the "U" which I was trying to scale (I needed more action at a point when the students were losing interest), I was elected as a UWSA 10th District Deputy. I attended Pa.'s first State conference. It was at that conference that a few more things fell into place and the ETHICS idea really became illuminated. The combination of talking to thousands of people about UWSA combined with the directives Mr. Perot was giving and the philosophy class, combined with a few more classes at that time was the birth of the ETHICS PROJECT. [9]
The way this can impact the 1996 elections is that the ETHICS PROJECT defines how UWSA can give the people a real voice. It provides a tool which they can use and there will be no need for them to say "no one is listening to what I have to say." When ETHICS gains recognition UWSA is going to start growing as the voice of the people who are seeking MERIT. Our strength is in our numbers. There are many other advantages which will come out of the study groups which can have an impact on the 1996 elections. I try not to re-explain the same thing to different people so that the WWW does not waste time with the same topics. One thing which is also central to the ETHICS project is it's time saving features. There are documents which go into that also. [9]
I try not to put a time frame on ETHICS because, that part is really out of my control. It is people like you and others which will help ETHICS gain the recognition it needs to make an impact in 1996. The speed at which that happens will determine how much of an impact ETHICS will have in 1996. Myself and others who are ABOARD the movement are doing what ever we can to see that we push ahead while maintaining the highest of ethical standards. 1996 is less important then seeing that this project is constructed in the right manner. So we will not cut corners even though 1996 is important. All we need at this stage are people to read the proposal and say they support the project. [9]
As we grow we will find the people we need to make ETHICS all that Ross has asked that it should be. This is going to come from the people. It is set up to be constructed in a manner that will ensure that. The basic outline in the 4 basic aspects of ETHICS will ensure it is an educational force which gets people involved solving their own problems while maintaining the highest of ethical standards. The by-product of that is a UWSA which is going to change the face of politics. That seems like a big statement. But I would be dishonest if I were to say it is less. Give me the chance to talk about the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM (ETHICS) and we will let history be the judge. [9]
3.2 STAGE 2 - GAIN RECOGNITION STAGE (this stage has prominence today 5-31-95)
The plan is to gain supporters to get the attention of UWSA NATIONAL, then gain the support of the general public. [1]
3.2.1 Letter from former UWSA Executive Director V.B. Corn, October 12, 1994
UNITED WE STAND AMERICA
7615 LBJ Freeway, Suite 727
Dallas, Texas 75251
October 12, 1994
The pilot program you highlighted in your letter is a good one. I encourage you to bring the program and the issues you addressed in your letter to the members of your local chapter. [2]
You also mentioned in your letter a debate where the member's issues could be recognized. This is a great way to educate our members and should be explored at the local as well as national level. [2]
Sincerely,
V.B. Corn
UWSA Executive Director [2]
A. Without these two words the whole project would either come to a halt while people bandy words on how to make ETHICS function best, or an elite group would force their opinions on everyone else and the voice of the people would be by grace or greed of the elite. If you are on the sidelines you are risking the elite will take it over for lack of voices on the peoples side. [1]
B. One of the mechanical components of ETHICS will divide like minded people into groups so that they can formulate their arguments. The study group sections will make it possible for anyone wishing to make a meaningful contribution to find a place to work out their thoughts. [1]
C. The study groups in the "show me" stage will experiment with the procedures they feel will be best to govern ETHICS. It is a time for the "trial and error" process to be used to produce some type of empirical information to support the procedures the group wants to recommend for adoption as official ETHICS procedures. [1]
D. The study groups can be less formal in their task and only get together to try and compile information without specifically trying to write procedures. But, I believe groups that do this will find that necessity will push them toward some type of study group procedure. [1]
E. All the work and recommendations will be review with these two words, Show Me how it works. Show me why it should be like this. Show ME why we need to structure the study groups in this or that manner based on the practical experience of working with in the study groups. [1]
3.4 STAGE 4 - TO BE DETERMINED (there will be sub-stages to the show me stage)
3.5 STAGE 5 - TO BE DETERMINED (there will be sub-stages to the show me stage)
3.6 STAGE 6 - IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
We are ready for a test run before final tune up. [1]
The estimated time to stage 6 depends on the people coming forward to say they are ready to have a real voice. I estimate from 2 to 5 years. But it all depends on how much the people want to change the system and how long it takes them to realize that they have the power within them and they do not need to look to the powerful first to make it happen. The powerful will come to us when we show them we are United. When we are divided we must look to them like we are doing today. [1]
4.0 Discussion (Questions & Answers)
4.1 General merit or logic of the proposal
>From TD:
Concerning your proposal for and Electronic Town Hall Initiative Comprehensive System, I do have some concerns. [5]
>From Bob K:
I want to offer an analogy which has been useful in the past so that we both have a better focus on the same picture. I see the ETHICS proposal as something similar to the plane the Wright Brothers first flew. The basic aerodynamics are in place but all the whistles and bells which will make it a jet liner will be added by people like yourself that help develop the procedures needed to implement the concept. [5]
There are fundamental aerodynamics which can not be violated or ETHICS will crash just like a plane. These dynamics are the four aspects that make up ETHICS. Just like the plane needs lift from the air which passes under its wings ETHICS receives lift by having people seeking understanding, while passing over powerful people trying to silence new ideas before they have a chance to be presented. [5]
Proper logic has two enemies. They are: (1) Not having a format to present an argument so that opinions can be formed on all the facts and (2) Not having the time to present all the facts. ETHICS solves both of these problems. Test these two factors against real life problems. Example: the soon to be 5 trillion dollar debt. It never would have happened if we had the time and place to present all the facts to groups of people and then survey these people based on the facts. Deficit spending is a disaster in the long run. If people look at the pros and cons of deficit spending and compared the gains and loses, it can not be justified. All the dynamics at work here may be a little difficult to see. [5]
Imagine a future time whem there may be a large segment of our population who have been involved in ETHICS study groups. These groups will know the system of obtaining arguments on both sides of an issue. They will know the process that was used to produce the facts. Since every study group will work with the same ground rules no matter what the issue, they will be free from the "present day confusion" factor. They will develop a trust for the validity of the facts which come from a system which they worked with on other issues. Since they are familiar with the process they will be able to prevent a lot of wasted time and use that time in a more efficient manner. Assessing the merits of issues and not guessing at the motive of the media or the spin doctor doing the talking, is a "VERY LARGE BONUS." These people will have a trust for the information which comes out of the other groups because they know the procedure which was used to gather facts on both sides of the issue. [5]
There is one major obstacle in the way of a balance budget today, that there are not enough people that see the problem. The politicians not doing the right thing is a secondary problem. If they knew the people understood the dangers which are facing this nation, the politicianâs weak characters would find it easier to do the right thing. If ETHICS were in place today and a vast majority of the people who reviewed the information coming out of deficit spending study groups were of the opinion that it is dangerous, these statistics would send an alarm to others and the problem would be dealt with. What we have today are people not knowing who to trust for information. Therefore logic is not given the time or the place to be presented in a manner which has people listening. [5]
>Bob R:
Yes, and finally we may have hit upon the beginning of a true "10th Amendment" tool for the general population to use and become active owners of our government. Not just voting for our proxies every couple years, but actually to play a role in part of what I assume you intend to be the biggest PAC of all. A role in shaping the course our government takes, rather than just voting and waiting to see what happens. [11]
Bob, despite my few concerns over how this will actually be implemented, I applaud your tireless efforts in this endeavor. It is good work; let me know how I can help. [11]
>Bob K:
Your letter is of great value to me. It puts you in the category of wanting to work as an innovator which is interested in solving problems. Your letter will help others to see the beacon in the distance. You can help by finding what most interests you and then by trying to come up with your ways to solve your concerns like you have done in this letter. [11]
That will be the third stage. It is going to over lap with the second stage of finding others to take a look at the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS and have them give an opinion. This second stage is a minor in one aspect, its ability to have a quick and certain outcome. Yet, this stage is of major importance because, without the help of people like yourself it will drag on too long and will delay the real work waiting for the people which want real change. We only need a little action here or there to get others ABOARD. The LADY LIBERTY EDITION sells it's self. The Movement is starting to grow faster every week. I am looking forward to finding more of the innovators which will help it happen. Thank you for your thoughts, I hope I have answered your questions. [11]
>Glenn S:
I think your ETHICS project is great (the part that I got) and sorely needed. My off-line [e-mail] reader eclipses any message over 32,000 characters, therefore I did not receive all of your proposal. The reason that I say it is sorely needed, is that it would address some of the problems that we have here in UWSA 49th CD (San Diego CA). When reading your proposal regarding strong personalities taking over and obfuscating the chapter majority and democratic action, I wondered if you had some insight as to what has been happening here in the 49th!! [12]
>Bob K:
Welcome ABOARD! I love to say that. Right now I have a very large smile because, the it is getting closer to the day when Dallas is going to hear our collective voices. Then we can get on with the business of dealing with the politicians who need to hear a common sense approach to dealing with problems. Yes, I do have some insight into what could be happening in the 49th--the same things which are happening in my district and all across the country. We all had large membership losses and related problems. Common sense says something needs to be changed. Some would prefer not to talk about it. They had their way and we have seen the result. [12]
One of the many powers of ETHICS has is that it helps people understand that all big problems are related to small problems. It is amazing how the same problem can spread and how the same problem can disappear when you take away the cause. I do not know specifically what has been happening in the 49th but I am sure it is happening all across the country. With your voice added to our voice we are going to RE-UNITE UNITED WE STAND AMERICA. [12]
I have been so grateful to you and Skip and Dan and Sandra and other good UWSA people who are trying to make positive change. I can see that you have a vision as to what UWSA can be and are willing to make it a reality. [12]
Even though UWSA has come to near collapse, I see it as a benefit. Not that long ago I was looking (first) to Dallas to put a stamp of approval on the ETHICS Project. I did not really understand that what Dallas thinks was not the most important thing. Dallas approval would have helped me to get other people to take a look at the proposal. But, I would have lost the chance to define the project to a closer perfection, in terms as they relate to everyday people. [12]
If I got the stamp of approval it would have been backwards. I would be looking for a "big boy" to solve my problem. If we are going to make major changes in this country at a meaningful pace, we need people looking not to others to solve problems but, to ourselves. If the "big boys" gave it their stamp before the "little guys" did, they would have controlled ETHICS and we would always need to look up for our solutions. [12]
I believe luck has treated UWSA well. When things seem the worst, a cruel trick of fate is dealt to the people which give up. If you look hard, when it seems things are really bad, solutions seem to be the closest. I am very glad to have our voice raised by the addition of yours. We can RE-UNITE UWSA! Welcome ABOARD!! [12]
>Ann M:
I have read and re-read your ETHICS proposal--its basic concept is great. Questions: From Section 1: How does it [ETHICS] find out what people think? ETH. polling status? 1. From what or whose TV presentations? 2. Who does the tabulation of survey's or votes? From Section 2: UWSA study group charters? debating procedures? From Section 3: like-minded people together via State insert in national newsletter? From Section 4: multi-level debate system? Am I correct in my understanding of what is contained in each section? [14]
This may help with some of our countryâs problems, mainly casting an informed vote and how to become informed. If ETHICS works, it could find out what people think. Question: where will funds to establish ETHICS come from? [14]
I can only assume you are quite computer literate--I am not. I just purchased my computer and printer, and have not yet bought a modem to get on-line. There are many members out there like myself. People have to become informed, but Bob, who will teach newcomers like me to surf the Internet? I loved it when Ross first talked about electronic town hall meetings but, in my area it will take a lot more organizing and finding computer literate people to set up the system. You have my vote for work on your proposal. It seems very complex to me, but I'm sure it's not. [14]
Re: the elephant: I'm taking my bites one at a time, and I want to find all his relatives, âcause I know they are bigger than me and it will take a whole lot of us to get them all. It is my nature to look for the reasons for things, first, then go for the answer or solutions. [14]
If ETHICS is part of UWSAâs solution--let's get to it!!!!
>Bob K:
Our voice is louder today. Pa. only needs 9 more votes to send ETHICS to National and there are others that have talked favorably about the project but have not come ABOARD. Ann is the first to step forward and say "let's go for it" in the letter I received by US mail yesterday. I called her to answer some of her questions and ask for her permission to place her letter on the Internet. This is another first. It proves that you do not need a computer to be part of the ETHICS MOVEMENT (or an ETHICS study group either). My optical character recognition (OCR) software converted [her] letter. "Hard copy to Internet"--we can all unite on this project. [14]
A special thanks to Ann for evaluating ETHICS on her own. The project has been suppressed in Pa. because, some people who hold power told the CDCâs of Pa. that they did not like the project, and in the paper blitz that the CDCâs need to endure it was kept from their attention. Annâs voice will help other CDCâs to take a look for theirselves and not merely accept the word of a person in power even it they maybe a "big wig" in UWSA. [14]
Once people have voiceed opposition to something it takes a big hearted person to reverse what they have said, even if what they said was based on hearsay information from a person who did not read the proposal. Which is how it happened in Pa. (when a regional Director made the error). It will not be easy to correct it because, you can take this to the bank: People do not like to believe they have erred. Every new voice of support helps people to slow down and consider that they need to take a second look. [14]
>From Sandra M:
From the campaign, I got the impression that a lot of us were pooling our ignorance in these town hall sessions. Please explain to me how this is different. [15]
Also, please do a summary of the Lady Liberty material. Someone told me they'd downloaded 67K of it but not yet read it. If it can't be summarized briefly, then I take that as such an important flaw as to warrant no further attention. That is one of the lessons I learned from the greatest genius I've ever met. [15]
>From Bob K:
I very much appreciate letters like this and I agree with the impressions you had about the ETH's that some have tried to do. I think you will find that there is a sharp distinction between ETHICS and those when we can relay those distinctionâs in the best format. You have asked several questions where I can start to summarize a few things. [15]
One of the goals of ETHICS is to have the people involved in the study groups to summarize the topic under study. First comes topic sentence, then a diagram of short one sentence statements, then a form with a little more substance, followed by a form that has the material which backs up the information. The study groups (not UWSA) would do this work in a prescribed manner set by the ETHICS procedures. You are right in line with your request for a summarized version of ETHICS. The only problem is that I have been working in the opposite direction. The original proposal is only 1 3/4 pages [referring to the "four aspects"-Editor]. That is the best summary to date. I have been adding new material to explain those 1 3/4 pages. There will soon be the equivalent of a small book on the WWW. We are setting it up so that specific topics can be drawn from this book for specific questions which someone may want an answer to. We are going to keep the book as small as possible by not repeating to answer the same questions twice. Therefore, if anyone wishes to be fully informed about ETHICS, the book will the best place. Plus they can be assured that our goal is to save their time. [15]
If I were were to give you a topic sentence I guess it could be several different sentences because the scope of ETHICS is so enormous. Here are several. [15]
Summary
Topic sentence: THE ETHICS IS A TOOL FOR AMERICA.
1. A tool which will revolutionize politics.
a. (to be completed)
b. (WWW index to be completed)
2. A tool which will RE-UNITE UWSA. (see ETHICS Week 4 report)
a.
b.
3. A tool which extracts information from on both sides of an
issue.
a.
b.
4. A tool which teaches people to approach a problem in an ethical
manner.
a.
b.
5. A tool which has roots back to the very seat of democracy.
a.
b.
This is a quick summery of ETHICS. All the sub-topics are the same as a., and b., in topic one. A more complete and extensive summary will be done as soon as we have the people power we need. We will find the people power as we gain recognition. We gain recognition every time I welcome a new person "Aboard." "WELCOME ABOARD'S" are given after a person has taken the time to BECOME INFORMED by reading the LADY LIBERTY EDITION OF ETHICS, and then contacting me and letting me know they support the ETHICS MOVEMENT. [15]
I look forward to hearing from you again on the ETHICS subject. I hope what I have offered is of help. [15]
>John R:
If I can be of any assistance on your Lady Liberty Project, please let me know. I appreciate your dedication and excitement for a project which emphasizes thought and not political games. [21]
>Bob K:
John, it was good to hear from you. The project has made progress since we last conversed. The addition of an e-mail address which reflects e-mail messages to everyone which subscribes to the list [electronic mailing list]. There is practically no activity on the reflector to date because the project is in its recognition stage. The question of the hour is how best to gain recognition? The Lady Liberty Edition does the job of explaining the project in some detail but it is too long for the 10 second sound bite generation. I believe we need a short summary of the project. One has been provided from a person who is interested in the project. I believe this will be a good place to open some discussion on the "ethics@uwsa.com" reflector. Send e-mail to "majordomo@uwsa.com", do not put anything in the subject box, and put "subscribe" in the text section. After you do that, you can send e-mail to "ethics@uwsa.com" and receive messages from other participants. [21]
After we discuss the ETHICS summary a little you may see a way to help market the project. I am hesitant to assign jobs to people because, one of the things which will make the project a very powerful tool is that people choose what is of interest to them. The first step is to find people to support the project so we can find the people to help build it. The summary is quite good but I need some input to help me evaluate it. [21]
I also received my first problem solving model. It arrived by luck at work. I work for the University of Scranton (a Jesuit College). We do 40 hours of training in the Public Safety Dept. during the summer. Last year the Jesuits wanted everyone to attend a Jesuit identity course. It was optional. No one attended, so they made it mandatory this year. It was great! A 5 hour course on how to problem solve. They built 177 Colleges and Universities around the world using this method. It seems to me if we are going to make the ETHICS project an educational force their method should hold merit. [21]
Their ideal end product just happens to be the same as the ETHICS Project. "The free commitment of people to goals and objectives which they have freely chosen." [21]
They have a 4 spoke power wheel on making decisions (as it was described). They described how many decisions are poorly made using only 2 or 3 of the spokes and how dissention usually sets in. It became quickly apparent that UWSA was not using all 4 spokes to make decisions. If National is, it is out of sight. State chapters and local chapters are not using the 4 problem solving spokes for sure, and we have the dissention the Jesuits described as being a result of poor planning. [21]
I would like to receive other problem solving models to work with in the years ahead. This is the first model and it seems like a good model to use when we open discussion about the ETHICS summary on the reflector. [21]
Before I give you the model, I will describe some of the different forms of power. I gave you the ideal form of power: "the free commitment of people to goals and objectives which they have freely chosen." A definition of power is the ability to do work. It can do productive work or destructive work. Some forms of power are:
1. sanction power, (a general giving orders to troops)
2. coercive power (the threat of injury for non compliance)
3. friendship power,(you will go out of your way for a friend)
4. expertise power,(you will listen to an expert more readily)
5. informal power (they shut this one out from the power wheel if a person tries to use it because, it is destructive and is often not recognized as destructive. I will explain later.){the group shuts out some of the other forms of power that I listed}) [21]
The wheel is:
DECISION >
ACTION >
EVALUATION >
RECOMMENDATION >
BACK TO DECISION.
The decision was made to start the ETHICS Project. The Lady Liberty Edition of ETHICS was the initial action. Now it is time for evaluation. This has two parts to it. First we list every possible negative effect. When that is completed we list every possible positive effect. We do not bounce back and forth between the two when the negative effects list is finished, it is finished. Then we move to the positive effects. When they are finished, evaluation is over. Then we move to the recommendation stage. [21]
It is between these stages that the people like to use informal power. They will be people who have offered nothing in the line of negatives or positive and they try to influence the recommendations through private conversations which usually start by tearing up people who are participating. It is suggested that if a person offers nothing in the evaluation stage they be left out of the recommendation stage. Therefore, participants need a list of things they see as positive and a list of things they see as negative. They can have the same items in their list as others but they must offer a list of both. [21]
Now we are ready for recommendations. If we get a group together to discuss The Lady Liberty Edition of ETHICS, and I believe we have such a group but would like to see it as large a possible, we can get to the recommendation stage and discuss the recommendation of a summarized version of ETHICS. These discussions can also help with recognition because we can get some of the people on the sidelines to join the discussion. [21]
After recommendation of all types are documented, we go back to the decision stage where we can then debate the different recommendations which will lead to a new action. [21]
I hope to have you aboard the [e-mail] reflector, and anyone else who wants to participate. I will hold off unti July 5th to open formal discussions. Until then people can start to make a list of negatives and positives, request a copy of Lady Liberty if they did not have a chance to read it, and they can subscribe to the ETHICS reflector. [21]
The agenda of the first discussion is to: "Discuss the effectiveness of the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS as a marketing tool." To all interested: Do as was described above, and if you know anyone that would be interested, get them to subscribe to ETHICS@UWSA.COM. [21]
4.2 How will people afford to participate in the ETHICS program?
>From TD:
There are many, many people who cannot afford computers for communications yet. How do you propose getting them on-line and who pays for it? Ross P? How do you propose to train them in computer usage and again, who pays? I think such a system would perhaps be elitist because of access issues such as these. [5]
>From Bob K:
The computer part of ETHICS is only one section. What makes ETHICS work is people sitting down to try and solve a problem. The first thing they need is people who have the same concern. That is the reason for the Newsletter listing. There needs to be an outline for the study groups to work with so they can list their concerns in order of what they believe to be of importance. Then the problem solving techniques are applied to each of their listings. What needs to happen in this first step is to have the study groups get a handle on all of the aspects involved in a solution. Like Ross says: you first need to understand the problem before you can solve it. This is a "whistle and bell" which I spoke of earlier. We need to develop a procedure to help the study group along, so the participants know how to problem-solve. After that--they come up with a solution. Then armed with what they believe to be the facts they are ready to debate others who do not accept their solution. This can be done in letter format, computers, or face to face. The best case would be all three. You may throw in radio. But there always needs to be a way to document the arguments presented and the answers given, so that they can be reduced to an orderly hard copy. These hard copy arguments will be presented to 3rd party people who will give an opinion. [5]
These opinions will be used to rank the importance of the material presented. This is the section of ETHICS where all the work is done on issues and it will require the most work to perfect. What the goal is from this section is to produce all the arguments on both sides of an issue along with it's perceived degree of importance by the people who take the time to review all the facts. ETHICS does not seek to say what is right or wrong, it only gives the facts as they are presented by opposing sides. As new evidence is introduced by study groups the minority view may become the majority view. ETHICS is an information system which lets the people who are interested draw their own conclusions and it can give you an index to how other people think based on particular facts. What we have today are people's opinion about things and you have no idea on what they base their opinion. So the opinion poll I am talking about should not be confused with the type of opinion poll which is being used today. [5]
>From Bob R:
From this and the rest of your proposal it sounds like your banking on UWSA to get this project funded and implemented. If that's the case, how far along have you gotten as far as organizational acceptance? [11]
>From Bob K:
Zero! In fact their are many National People who want to stop it. Not because they have read it though. If they understood what it was about they would be helping us now. These ill informed national people are people which believe they know something they do not know. Some of them will have red faces when WE THE PEOPLE explain to them how it is the voice we were promised and they will join in and help us. Other will be to proud to admit they made an error. I feel sorry for those people. They need to learn that the only real fool in this world is a person who can not change their mind. [11]
As far as organizational acceptance, we are gaining the only thing we need to make it happen. National's voice does not matter to me today. It is not even important to me today. I am gaining the voice of the people which take the time to read what the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS is all about. That is where the real power is. The peoples voice [will get] stronger and we will get DALLAS's attention. Then Dallas will become important. But not as a top down organization, but as an amplifier of the peoples voice. [11]
Money is not even a factor. The only thing we need to make ETHICS happen are people writing to me in support of ETHICS. Our voice gets louder with each new supporter. Everything else will fall in place when new people join the movement. The louder our voice gets the more people there will be to take a look at ETHICS and the more opportunities for us to find the innovators to help us build it. [11]
4.3 How is ETHICS different from existing Internet Email Lists and USENET Newsgroups?
>From TD:
What is different about what you want to do and what is already happening with the Newsgroups on Internet now? There is a tremendous amount of feedback on the political Newsgroups already. [5]
>From Bob K:
There is no organized system which puts the arguments together (with the Internet today). You type, they type, and it is gone. For the most part it is individuals doing the arguments. The arguments are thrown out and you get feedback from people and you do not know what they base their opinions on (for the most part). Take deficit spending, for example, you still get people on both sides of the argument. Under the present system of making decisions it does not matter what the reasons are that both sides believe they are right. All that matters is who has the most voices on their side. This is an easy way to get things done and sometimes it works after people suffer. I am talking about a slower process where both sides try to understand why the other side has taken a position. Then by weighing their options they can determine what holds more merit. As a result of this process what ever has more merit has chance to happen before we suffer. In the case of deficit spending we need to go bankrupt as a nation before you get enough voices on the right side of the argument. Under ETHICS you have a chance to change people who hold poor logic by laying all the cards out on the table. The only way poor logic can win is if it never needs to be measured next to a better alternative. [5]
4.4 Who gets to say what is the "correct attitude" and what actions are valid and which are invalid?
>From TD:
You mentioned a UWSA mission statement to be included in the development process. I have no specifics on this, but you say that it should outlaw violence, bigotry, and other anti-social activities. The problem of attempting to control anothersâ social attitude is: who gets to set the "correct attitude?" As we have already seen in our present system, it is impossible to control people's morals without coercing them through the point of a gun. The Democrats are good for this now and we've seen Ross P's fascist attitude of wanting to toss the Second Amendment in the trash. [5]
>From Bob K:
I first addressed a slightly different argument awhile ago, but it addresses your concern about determining "correct attitude." Events have changed a little but the meaning still rings true (speaking of the argument that the mission statement was censorship and that it was wrong or impossible to exclude groups and be fair). This is an important concern but, I believe it is much easier to deal with then it first seems. [5]
What we need to control are people who are not seeking understanding but are seeking to harm or hurt others. I have no doubt that this section of the 4 aspects could come up with a reasonable balance of power to identify destructive forces as opposed to people who want to understand the other person's point of view. I am not saying it would be easy to safeguard the power which excludes people from study groups rightfully, but with some thought and adjustments it can be accomplished. For the people who say no one should be excluded from participating in the ETHICS study group project I say: Very well then, if you can give a reasonable answer to that question, I will give some thought to your concern. [5]
Please tell me the benefit you believe you could receive by having Jeff Dahmer into your house to live with you (events have changed and he is dead). No one has ever given a reason to invite destruction. Some things are easy to recognize as destructive and can be rejected easily. They are the things that may be in the shadows or in a gray area. Ross's adage should be of help in solving this problem: before you can solve a problem you must recognize the problem. I have no doubt that through discussion we can recognize the gray area problem and solve that problem, if we have non-violence and a thirst for understanding as the beacon that we follow. [5]
Given the information system we have today, it is hard to prove or disprove the allegations about Mr. Perot being a power-monger. Actions speak louder than words in such matters. If Mr. Perot is a power-monger, he will never accept the ETHICS proposal because, ETHICS is about dispersing the power among the people who pursue "MERIT." You do not need any special privilege under ETHICS to share the power. All you need is a desire to find understanding with your fellow man. I have been guided by Mr. Perot's words in the writing of this proposal and I have never had any doubt that Mr. Perot will like it when he reads it. [5]
4.5 How will this get through the barrier of access to mass media?
>From TD:
You suggest that the ETH poll "would involve TV presentations of facts." How do you get around the controlled media such as we have today, especially on TV? I've taken to subscribing to several alternative publications myself just to get some balance in reporting. Who decides which entity gets time to voice its opinion? Any group can have a study group charter as long as it meets the mission statement standards? Who gets to set the standards and who declares whether those standards have been met? And, again, who gets to write the mission statement? [5]
>From Bob K:
If we ever get a large enough group of like minded people together that want to build an information system, the objectives outlined in the ETHICS proposal will guide those people. Then they will approve the mission statement. The author of the final mission statement may be a group of people or an individual who sees the importance of people trying to solve their own problems. The best solutions will not come by having people garner support for an issue simply by having followers. The best solutions will come by having people understand the complexity of problems and then make logical choices. The mission statement will facilitate this type of problem solving. It may be that the mission statement will be taken from something which is already written. I believe the UWSA mission statement is on target but that a little more needs to be added. The media is a problem only if we believe it will not react to something which has more power ( ETHICS will also improve the media's performance by giving it competition). Something which has more power and which is not around today is a real voice of the people, a voice which is focused under a common banner of the ETHICS information system. The proposal which I am speaking about will take years to build. It will build momentum as people get involved solving the problems which are near and dear to them on the local, state and national levels. [5]
The nation-wide electronic poll is only the final step. There is a lot of human interaction that will take place before any issue reaches that point. Also, the vast majority of issues will never reach that level. But that does not mean that study group's information is wasted time. Many problems will be solved without reaching the final electronic poll because, what all study groups emit is understanding. So many issues will receive the proper attention by our elected officials simply because there is a higher level of understanding among the electorate. [5]
Who chooses which issues become eligible for a electronic town hall poll? United We Stand America-National has a system in place which chooses issues which have a strong consensus. This system should work. Only issues which have logic on their side in the ETHICS system can build a strong consensus over a period of time. So if our politicians are not acting logically and they need a reality check it would be a good time to do a presentation (these presentations could be local, state or national). [5]
How about issues which could not build a strong consensus? Abortion and gun control are two. There is a strong need for people interested in these two issues to sit down and talk. The quick mouth will say these sides can never reach an agreement. This is the wrong approach. Before you can solve a problem you must understand the problem. What we have today are emotions gathering followers. But, the fact is that there are people in opposite camps which can find some things to agree upon. Solutions can be found and alternatives can be sought if logic is given a chance to be heard. Then if a group finds a strong consensus the issue can be brought to an electronic poll. Keep in mind that you could have an electronic poll on a local level and still have the state and national not have an electronic poll. What is needed to decide what achieves electronic poll status is the people's will. If people need to form a consensus greater than 50% to bring an issue to electronic poll status, they will seek areas to find compromises. Compromises are made possible when one side understands the other sides concerns. [5]
4.6 How do you keep institutional biases out of the newsletters and State issues boards?
>From TD:
With regard to a state newsletter, how do you keep out biases? Why do you need a state issues board to control who gets registered as a study group? Anyone wanting power and control over others would immediately gravitate to such a board. Seems you would have a very powerful censorship group here. [5]
>From Bob K:
You have a very good understanding of power structures. The State Issues Board has less power then it first appears. Their Constitution is the mission statement. Plus there needs to be an ETHICS review board that dissects decisions which rejects study groups. There also need to be logs kept by the study groups which will help ensure they are acting in prescribed manners. [5]
The main job of the State Issues Board would be to act as a middle man. Putting people in touch with other like minded people across the state who are seeking answers on particular issues is one of the Boards jobs. Plus, they would supply the problem solving format which will be used to list their arguments in a manner for opposing groups to challenge. The State Issues Board will add an element of structure to the study groups. It is very important that all study groups use the same format to gather information so that people can understand how information was gathered even though their knowledge of the process was learned in completely different study groups. (issue project). [5]
The information compiling will be keep uniform. Because the study groups will need to submit their findings to UWSA in a format prescribed by UWSA, if the study group wants to take advantage of the like minded network system and have their information included in the information system data base. UWSA must give a review approval to have the information inducted into UWSA'S information system which could lead to an Electronic Town Hall presentation. The State Issues Board will help the study groups understand proper problem solving techniques and provide procedural information to the study groups. [5]
After study groups receive their charter, the State Issues Board role in not posting study groups information will need to have some sort of balance of power check system so that the State Issues Board can not abuse its power. The only reason for not accepting study group information into the UWSA data base should be for improper procedural infractions, which will be well defined and not easily mistaken. If the Board finds a way to abuse its review power, the people will lose their voice. [5]
>From Bob R:
Are you creating a hierarchy of elitism here? Meaning, opinions that will carry a higher weight because they are at the higher level in the organization? -or- will each level up merely be a representative composite representing the polling results of all the levels below? In other words, in the latter case, the higher up you go it becomes more of an administrative function, and it is a composite of the opinions of the masses which carry the most weight? [11]
>From Bob K:
No, I was looking at it a little differently. I partly answered this above when I said you could start another study group on the same side of an issue because, you did not see it the same way. If we go with the [UWSA]-Pa. by-laws rule you only need 5 people for that group. That way there would not be a person telling you to "sit down [they are] busy on something else." The multi-level is a much looser component then it first seems. I have a flow chart that makes it easier, but I do not have the commands down to convert it to text. Perhaps I can fax it someday to someone that wants to work in this area and they can get us a flow chart in text copy. [11]
I am not worried too much about the interaction of the study groups in finding what they will put forward as arguments and how they will need to cooperate with each other. Those problems will be solved when they have a "NEED" to fulfill. That need will be motivated by the ETHICS requirements for the study groups to submit their information in a prescribed manner, if they want their information included in the ETHICS DATA BASE. To put the information together in that prescribed manner there will need to be cooperation between all study groups on all levels and on both sides of the issue. [11]
>From Bob R:
What does "3rd party people" mean? Is there some executive body whosâ opinions will count more than all the rest of the work and be some deciding factor after all the other arguments are collected and "presented" to them? [11]
>From Bob K:
Negative! The 3rd party people are just people who are interested in trying to understand the issue. There will be people who will try to slant the poll, so there is some work in this area for some innovative ideas to deal with those who do not want to play on a level field. [11]
>From Bob R:
I still have some concern that--even though this is a great idea, I don't see how the system will systematically prevent elitism from getting control of this process in several levels of the system. [11]
I suggest that at the very least, whatever the end product is intended to be after filtering up through the channels, that you send the whole list of issues and their summaries back to the masses for a general vote of the membership on what are: (a) the priorities among those issues, and (b) which side of the issue they are on (i.e. from the solution set if one is presented with the issue). [11]
>From Bob K:
This is the type of thing the innovators will deal with. If you can define the problem as you are trying to, we can solve the problem. But no one is suggesting anything besides having Dallas hear our voice is going to be easy to accomplish. But, if we only look at the complexity of the job as a whole it will be enough to stop a person from trying. The same applied to [inventing] the computer. There is no way we would have entered the computer age if people only tried to look at how complex it was before they tried to build it. Everyone with a keen interest in particular areas will give us something which we can build upon. I am sure of that. Your concerns are proof of it. But do not get bogged down in trying to build the whole thing yourself or you will become overwhelmed. [11]
4.7 How do you keep track of who has a vested interest in one outcome or another?
>From TD:
And finally, how to tell who has a vested interest or who buys into someone else's story spun by a spin doctor? I'll tell you--everyone does! That is why the power to control the media is the power to manipulate. Bad people want to manipulate for their own benefit, and you can bet they will try to control your system. [5]
>From Bob K:
The process which I have described should eliminate the power of the vested interest people. These power brokers seek followers. ETHICS seeks facts from both sides and lets the people draw their own conclusions. Bad people can only manipulate by keeping half the story before the people. They will try and control ETHICS but, if it is built with checks and balances in its procedures, which return to the basic principles of the 4 aspects, we can build something as powerful as the United States Constitution. The founding fathers based their basic principles on freedom and built a system which gave people a chance to speak. [5]
The government that our founding fathers built was to ensure that the people had a voice. But, the corruptionistâs that manipulate the people have eroded the peoples voice. As long as the electorate is kept ignorant and voting on add campaigns, the rich and powerful will do what is in their short term interest. ETHICS is only an extension of the same basic principles which our founding fathers held so high. ETHICS returns the balance of power missing from the people's voice which is needed to ensure good government by the people, for the people, and of the people. [5]
4.8 How about what other reform and liberty minded groups are doing?
>From TD:
You are right. This job is enormous. I wish I had some answers for you. But I think the answers for freedom in our country are coming from many, many libertarian organizations throughout the USA who are finally starting to be heard. Groups like the "Individual Rights Foundation" in L.A., the "Drug Policy Foundation" in DC, the "Cato Institute" in DC, the "Hoover Institute" at Stanford, the "Advocates for Self Government in Atlanta," the "Fairness to Landowners Committee" in Maryland, "People for the West!" in Colorado, the "American Land Rights Association" and many more! [5]
>From Bob K:
All these organizations you mention could find a broader audience if ETHICS were to become a reality. The job is enormous. But so was the building of the computer age. If we only look at the size of the job required to build ETHICS, that would be enough to stop ETHICS from becoming a reality. But, if we see the need and take pleasure in pushing it along at what ever pace we are able, nothing will be denied which has a true need. [5]
>From TD:
Perhaps you can subscribe to the LP News to get a taste of Thomas Jefferson. The editor is Randy Langhenry, 71610.3614@compuserve.com [5]
>From Bob K:
I will subscribe for a while. I fear I am falling into the same trap which keeps people from taking a closer look at ETHICS. That is: that people are too caught up in their own issue to give others a chance to speak. I have read some of the Federalist Papers a few years ago. I do not think that the founding fathers would have any problem with the ETHICS proposal. I believe it supports the same ideals which they held high. What do you think after I have had a better chance to explain the dynamics of the proposal? [5]
4.9 Polls and dealing with public Apathy
>From Bob K:
I wonder how many people there are across your state who share a similar concern? I wonder what would happen if a large group of them were to open a discussion group and arrange their information in a logical order of importance. I bet when people of an opposite opinion heard about it they would try and come up with reasons why you were wrong. Now suppose these problem solving/fact finding committees were to present outlines of their arguments to each other so that both sides could try and distill fact from fiction and weak positions from strong positions. Then suppose there was a system which split up the different utterances into different divisions so that argument of the opposing factions were laid side by side for other people which are interested in this subject to examine. [5]
Then suppose there were a poll taken as to which arguments were weak and strong. How would this poll differ from the polls we have today? I would say we have polls taken today and we have no idea what the people base their opinion upon. The poll I am talking about would measure opinions based on specific information. There is a big difference in the two polls. The one I am talking about is an informed opinion and should have value to a person who is looking for merit. The other opinion is of little value unless you wish to waste your time or are interested in playing a power con game where the weak arguments beat the stronger. [5]
Now suppose someone was to give you a list of issues which included after each topic a percentage of informed opinions in favor, against and undecided on the issue. What advantages could you derive by checking which way the informed opinions fall? [5]
Suppose you choose a topic that interests you and you open up the file and the arguments are laid out in order of importance; and there are 30 different divisions to this major argument preceded by another informed opinion poll that shows the bottom 25 arguments have a percentage factor which indicates it is most likely a waste of time to read the weak arguments. In today's world, weak arguments are raised to an equal level with the best arguments. Today, unless we personally are involved with the topics we need to trust someone's opinion as to what is weak or strong. This is one reason most people do not even bother trying to figure out what has merit and what does not. If I am correct and I believe I am, apathy can be dealt with when this obstacle is removed. [5]
So how can we become informed when there is no system in place to make the process of finding merit manageable. We do not have the time to be experts on everything. So our only choice is to follow opinions based on who has the most power. Do we continue to play this con game or do we do something which will help people find what has merit. I think I know where Ross stands on this division of the searching for "MERIT" argument. [5]
Is it not time for the ETHICS Project? which does the things which I have described above and a lot more? The single most important thing you can do to help build this information system is send me a reply with your comments. Every new voice of approval will help attract the interest of other people. Reply today and you will be helping lay a corner stone. [5]
>From Bob R:
I think 50% is too high a number. We can't even get 50% of the homeowners in our homeowners association to show up for the general meeting in order to have a quorum to elect our officers. We finally decided on 10% of the population to form a quorum. Likewise we settled on--if 10% of the population asks to make something an issue (a recent example was should we allow above ground pools), then we have investigation by our Architectural committee, getting pro and con viewpoints, then present summaries of each in a flyer to the whole population and make the vote an agenda topic at the next annual meeting. But, it takes 10% to make it an issue so that we will work on it; it then still requires a majority vote to approve the rules change. (by the way, even though quorum is at 10% we still get about a 40% or so turn out). [11]
>From Bob K:
50% is only an arbitrary figure. It may be that the figure is even higher. Remember we are dealing with something which is not the same old thing where people have opinions based on who knows what. Under ETHICS opinions are based on specific information. If we had ETHICS in place today and layed out the arguments side by side in favor of deficit spending and balancing the budget, argument by argument it would not be hard to see people do not support deficit spending. [11]
Now if you want to poll extraneous arguments as to whether we cut this or that you get something different based on the people being effected. The procedures will keep the arguments separated so that a person giving an opinion on one argument is not basing it on something else. [11]
The extraneous argument would need to be dealt with sort of like: Does this particular program have benefit? How much benefit? What are the benefits? Can we do more then list them? Can we measure the benefits we get from this program? How we fund the program is part of a latter argument, just as how we fund the ETHICS project. The money end is something which will solve itself when we determine the need. This should not be confused with spending the money first like we do today because someone says we need a program. It is more of, show the people the need and the benefits, and if they want it they will find a way to fund it. [11]
4.10 Will there be any way to make sure that all sides get equal time?
>From Bob R:
Will there be some mechanism for ensuring that all sides of the issue get equal time? [11]
>From Bob K:
For sure! That is central. As a kid living in what was considered the country, us kids used to get all kinds of games together. We would choose up sides and when it was lop-sided, I was the one who was always working to adjust the rules to make it fair. Like if we were playing baseball and one side was way ahead someone would have to bat left handed or someone would get more strikes. I am not saying the rules are going to change like this in ETHICS. But I am saying that I have always enjoyed seeing that everyone gets a fair chance. The people that get together to write the procedures will have a "trial and error" period so that we can get a lot of input from people [in order to] do our very best to see what is fair. [11]
4.11 Does "educate" mean "condition" to a pre-determined view?
>From Bob R:
This sounds fine as long as "educated" doesn't mean "conditioned" and/or only opinions that are within the "accepted/predetermined" range. [11]
>From Bob K:
I have tried to call into Ross's Radio show to talk about ETHICS and what I ran into was accepted/predetermined range. I was polite and left a kind message but that type of structure never gave me a chance to get past the interviewer. The study groups will put it together and if you do not like what the study group wants that you are a part of, it is not hard to form another group with your spin on the issue. Then it is a battle of who talks merit to the people which are interested. [UWSA]-Pa.'s deputies voted to have 5 people as the smallest study group which could form a chapter. [11]
Not that long ago ETHICS was not in the accepted/predetermined range for UWSA members to talk about and it still is not in that range for national people. But, the ETHICS INFORMATION AGE MONUMENT is going to be erected to prove accepted/ predetermined ranges can be changed when there is a system in place to hear what has merit. We need to do it (ETHICS) without that system, the hard way. We will not let the sides be unfair as to what has merit after ETHICS is adopted. It will be important to remember that National rejected ETHICS the same way IBM rejected Ross's idea for EDS. When ETHICS becomes the cornerstone of UWSA, the MONUMENT, will be a reminder to those who come after we are gone that the best ideas need an opportunity to find like minded people. So that they can be properly presented and ETHICS needs to secure that place. [11]
4.12 How can we begin to build and prototype this system?
>From Bob R:
Another question I guess I have after that is, can we begin to prototype at least parts of this system now, in order to get it off the ground and possibly build some momentum? [11]
>From Bob K:
Yes, by all means there are already people looking to do what you are suggesting. One of the best things I used from Ross's speeches was "find a mountain and try and climb it." I tried to climb many since then. Many I started and did not know or care if I could reach the top. The things I did not accomplish lead me to other areas to try something else. Let your interests guide you and you can make a major contribution to the innovation part of the project which we are entering. There are going to be a lot of small groups trying to put together procedures. Try and find out want works for you. We will be putting together letters like this one which asks questions and raises concerns. These will be your only help for a long time as you try to understand what you are trying to find. They will be like a beacon in the distance. They will not tell you specifically how to get to where you want to go. But they will help guide you. That is how it should be from the bottom up. It will give the little guy a chance to be innovative in their approach and let people choose what areas of the project best suits their interest. [11]
There will be people working in a lot of different area's trying to figure out what is best. They will be the best possible people in those areas because everyone interested in being an innovator will gravitate to the areas which interests them the most. It is already beginning to happen. [11]
>Greg B:
Bob K has been asking each of us to support the process whereby these "facts" will be identified and disseminated. Currently my name is on his list of supporters. [13]
>Bob K:
One of the things I envision for the study groups are that there will be people who disagree both on the basic premises on the same side of an issue and people who disagree and want to take a position opposite the study groups position. [13]
There will be a vast hurrah of study groups. Bob will be giving input on how ETHICS can best structure the study groups so that the people who are diametrically opposed to something in the study group will have an opportunity to form another study group around the different line of thought. We are some time away from this point in the building stage of ETHICS, where we can hand out e-mail addresses upon request. There are many thing to consider first. Innovators need to improvise until there is something in place to fix what we need. The ways we improvise to solve problems will help us to come up with something equitable in the ETHICS structure to handle the problem which you are improvising upon. This requires a trust from both sides that we are all interested in doing what is best for our country and the next generation. If we have this trust we should have the ability to find a way for a person who disagrees with us to have an opportunity to formulate his/her argument with like minded people and find a way to synthesize all the finding in a text in a logical order based on the percentage of support the work receives. (this is only a rough sketch). [13]
Greg, if you are diametrically opposed to something in Bob's group, try and find some people who agree with you and get some discussion going to make a group presentation. This will not be as easy as it will be after ETHICS is up and running, because then there will be more people involved at that time and there will be more of an opportunity for you to find like minded people. [13]
Your short and concise letter of support of ETHICS will go a long way to get the attention of other people to slow down and look at ETHICS. I have noticed that there are some people who have not received an official WELCOME ABOARD letter from me, which do support ETHICS. It is very important to me and the ETHICS MOVEMENT to have everyone who supports ETHICS to contact me. These letters of support help the MOVEMENT gain recognition, which is needed to get other people to slow down long enough to take a look at ETHICS. I need to register all the voices in support of ETHICS so that we can move out of the recognition stage and toward the implementation stage. Therefore, if anyone has not received an official "WELCOME ABOARD" please do the one thing which will make ETHICS an reality. Write a short comment about why you support ETHICS and send it to me. Your voice will make our collective voice louder and others will hear it as a result of this very simple task. [13]
I hope my input is of some help to the people which will want to start working in study groups as innovators and participants. We will be striving to establish a degree of harmony within the study group so that like minded people have a place to pursue a line of thought without getting bogged down in disagreements, which will be pursued in a latter presentation between study groups. In order for everyone to have a chance at having a voice on an issue we first need to have like minded people gather together and formulate their arguments. This is a key to ending the type of in-fighting which will divide people away from UWSA and ETHICS. [13]
4.13 How will the system ensure people have access to all the facts needed?
>From Bob R:
Equal to that I think all the people need access to all the FACTS and the ability to get MORE facts as the questions evolve. How does your system deal with that? Sounds expensive whatever it is, not to mention the fact that the government doesn't frequently like to make certain facts available to the public. [11]
>From Bob K:
These are concerns for the innovators. They are more specific than my department is going to deal with unless the innovators need some input from me. I have no doubt that they are minor problems compared to writing the procedures. To give you an example, I had a person who was interested in helping with [contibuting] a mainframe not too long ago. Whether he has the money to back it up or not, I do not know. But did you ever see when a disaster happens how many people come forward to give what they can to help out? Well America has a real need. I do not think we will have any trouble with the money. When people see a good investment the money will follow. There is a heck of a lot of work to be done before we need money also. In fact all the important work of giving the people a voice only requires an e-mail or a stamp and a letter--for the present stage. The next stage is just a lot of people talking. If they need money to do things they will need to figure it out. The Internet will supply communication. It will be like the old fire brigade. Everyone grabs a bucket or a pot and tries to put out the fire. Only this time itâs our house, "AMERICA" and we will work even harder. We will worry about the money later. [11]
>From Bob R:
We won't do any better than what we do today unless we can get from "what they believe to be the facts" to unabridged and proven facts as a source for the debate. [11]
>From Bob K:
ETHICS does not need to choose what the facts are. What has merit when lied alongside what does not will take care of the unabridged part. We only need to build a level playing field where power is not a silencing factor. When that happens the weaker arguments can not beat the stronger arguments. [11]
4.14 How are you going to keep the ethics review board ethical?
>From Bob R:
In my opinion, the ETHICS review board must be elected by the population, not appointed or assigned or elected by some other committee or board. âElse I suggest that eventually the population will use that as a reason to think the board is not speaking for them. This review board should also have frequent re-elections (at least annually) in order to have "votes of confidence" in them. [11]
>From Bob K:
Perhaps your opinion is correct. I have not given it much thought. What I see off the cuff is work rules in place that are more important than the people performing the job. It may be that they are paid workers. This is something for the innovators to take up. Your concerns are noted and may very well be what is best. I am not going to try and second guess what the innovators come up with in this area. I like Ross's approach when he is presented with such an argument as to what action he is intending. He says: I have not heard what is proposed yet. Letâs see what they put forward and then talk about it. That is the approach I am trying to do with this enormous project. I have set some general directions and am eager to get input from the people which wish to be innovators in the various area. The job is to big for anyone person or any small group to do. We need to work together to get where we want to go. I have no doubt that we can do the job together because we share a common need. [11]
5.0 DISCUSSION WITH STUART BURNS
5.1 ETHICS - Under Critical Examination Shines Even Brighter
>Bob K:
ETHICS UNDER CRITICAL EXAMINATION SHINES EVEN BRIGHTER
What is the "VALUE" of a higher level of "HUMAN UNDERSTANDING?" That value has no upper limit that I can see and this makes any complete explanation of all the value derived from a HIGHER LEVEL OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING impossible to measure. Since ETHICS is about raising the level of HUMAN UNDERSTANDING you can see why it is difficult to concisely define all the benefits which will be derived from the successful installation of the ETHICS PROJECT. [16]
I believe that the one thing about the "ETHICS PROJECT," which makes people misread where the most benefit is being derived from is because, the Electronic Town Hall Initiative Comprehensive System (ETHICS) derives so many benefits from so many different levels of human interaction. Plus, ETHICS derives benefit for society on any issue which will go through the system, for several more reasons based on people understanding the dynamics of the particular issue under study. [16]
Some people may ask: How is that possible? I say if human ignorance is a lack of human understanding, then the one thing we need in the world to help society is more understanding of problems and more understanding of what everyone's concerns are. The ETHICS PROJECT is about teaching people to discover how to try and fully understand problems and how to try and understand where other peoples concerns lie. [16]
We learn best by practical experience. So come with me and we will wade across the river Stuart Burns is saying we cannot cross, using the principles laid out in ETHICS. You will see how the common sense of looking at problems in the microcosm of the working class perspective combined with the principles of the ETHICS PROJECT is all we need to improve our COUNTRY. (Microcosm and the analogies which Mr. Perot uses so often are one and the same as I use it here. Average people do not need to be economists to know the US economic engine has a misfire). [16]
In this lengthy critique from Stuart Burns of Canada we take up 9 topics. I would prefer to reply to shorter letters but we must deal with what is at hand. This letter and others will be used as a guide to better understand some of the many dynamics at work when using the ETHICS process to solve problems. Robert B. Reinhardt has stepped forward and offered to help compile these letters into a format which can be indexed for easy access. Other people who have similar concerns will be referred to read the related sections of these letters which deal with their concern. I will not need to keep addressing the same topics. So that the many hours that went into this letter and other letters will be well worth the effort. This procedure will also save the time of people working on the ETHICS project because, they will not need to read the same issues addressed time after time to find out if something new on ETHICS is addressed. [16]
There are other people already working on the ETHICS project. Bill Selmeier in the data storage area, he is also supplying technical support for e-mail group setup. Bob Moneymaker is working a pilot study group around the topic of money, so that he can get some practical experience and ideas on how to start writing study group procedures. His address will be in operation soon as MONEY-ETHICS@UWSA.COM. The job of filling 1000 innovator positions has already begun as was predicted. When people see a true need they deal with the obstacles which stand in the way. [16]
A SCATTER SHOT OF 9 TOPICS:
1. The basic premises ETHICS is built upon.
2. Symptoms from societies problems.
3. ETHICS as a warning alarm before destruction hits from bad programs.
4. Abortion
5. Violence
6. War
7. The many facets of education under ETHICS.
8. ETHICS is about more than separating facts from fiction.
9. What debate means under ETHICS: it is not a heavy weight fight.
>Stuart B:
I have read your ETHICS package with interest. I think it is an excellent start at a 21st century approach to using the capabilities of modern electronics to expand the reach of democracy. I am a Canadian, so cannot directly participate in your efforts. But I do have a few comments to contribute, in the hopes that I can increase your probability of success. [16]
>Bob K:
All help is greatly appreciated. [16]
>Stuart B:
(1) The design of your ETHICS proposition is based on the hidden assumption that the most significant cause of "bad" political decisions is the confusion of facts with opinion by an uninformed (or misled) voting populace. I think perhaps you should re-examine this assumption. [16]
>Bob K:
Not quite accurate. This is only one of the exposed parts of the problems which ETHICS deals with. It is not the base assumption/foundation of ETHICS. The foundation lies much deeper. If people know the good, they will do what is right when push comes to shove. The task performed to find what is right is of more benefit. This is where ETHICS teaches people to reason by trying to understand what the other person's concerns are. [16]
ETHICS is about identifying "NEEDS" of other people as well as our own "NEEDS" and evaluating what the benefits maybe if the needs are fulfilled. It is about learning to take a critical look at programs so that we can determine when something is of no benefit. It is about building a system so that we can tap the common sense of people wishing to make a difference. It is about having a way to have people be up on more issues with less effort. It is about a lot more. What is central is the subtle removal of prejudices standing in the way of understanding problems. If we think we are right about something we hold a prejudice which blocks us from listening to others. Before we can solve a problem we must understand the problem from the other persons perspective. [16]
Prejudices close the mind from looking for alternatives because we think we know something, which we do not. When I talk about debate I am not talking about a heavy weight fight where the motivation is to win by trying to block the other person's possible solutions. I am talking about eliminating that which does not work and replacing it with something different. The ETHICS process will educate the people in the most useful direction. In the direction of searching to understand why other people have concerns instead of learning to react in a word game out of self defense. This is where to look for the foundation of ETHICS. [16]
>Stuart B:
First, "fact" and "opinion" are two ends of a continuum. Where one draws the line between facts and opinions is largely a matter of personal confidence. There is no "objective" criteria upon which to make such a distinction. I am attaching an article I have written on "The Definition of Knowledge" that may make this point clearer. The consequence is that two people may disagree about whether a particular statement about Reality is "fact" or "opinion." I realize that you have incorporated provisions to deal with ranking the "importance" of various opinions, but I think you need to deal with the problems presented by the inevitability of disagreements about what statements are facts, and what statements are opinions. [16]
>Bob K:
If the benefits which were being derived were only coming from separating fact from opinion, your argument would be a little stronger. But since what you mistakenly took for the foundation is only a bonus which is reaped when people separate fact from fiction--you have built your arguments on sand. It was an easy error to make because, the bonuses will be many and much more often realized under the ETHICS Project than they are under what we have today. Many people, when they first look at ETHICS, make the same error. It was only luck which had me stumble upon this hidden jewel of raising the level of HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. The dawn of the INFORMATION AGE has made it possible. [16]
The major benefit that we will receive from ETHICS will come from people participating in the search for facts, not the finding of those facts. Although, as I have already stated the bonus is most welcome. To solve problems you need to understand the problem first. So a search for facts to solve problems must start with a search to understand what the other person's views are. It is this search for human understanding which is most important if we are going to improve the human condition. The finding of facts is secondary. [16]
If a problem is so complex that fact and opinion are not clear, then the people involved who want real answers, will need to find different approaches to come at the problem. If you are thinking about debate where it is a prize fight, you are on the wrong track again. Those people are not looking for solutions, they are playing word games. What we are building and what the procedures will foster, are people looking for solutions not a victor or a score. There is a big difference. [16]
The way in which this will be accomplished is by having people identify "NEEDS." If there is a true need for something then the people will find a way to fulfill the need by solving problems. The worst way to solve problems is by trying to creating illusions with word games to win a prize fight. The best way is by seeking understanding. [16]
>Stuart B:
Second, it has been my experience that most disagreements, whether philosophical or political, have much more to do with Values, than with statements about Reality (whether fact or opinion). The structure you have devised appears well suited to deal with disagreements over the factualness of statements about Reality, and the logicalness of conclusions drawn from those statements. But it does not appear to be prepared for the inevitable conflicts over values. [16]
>Bob K:
I believe you have observed a symptom not a cause. Most political or philosophical disagreements are caused by people not understanding where the other guy is coming from and most often they are arguing about semantics and actually agree on the central issue but do not know it. You must approach this system (ETHICS) from the stand point that people basically want to do what is right and fair. If they can understand where the other guy is coming from and evaluate where the needs are and what the payoffâs will be if they fulfill the need, then they will make the best decisions. In order for this process to work it requires that both sides try to understand each other's position, this is what the ETHICS procedures will facilitate. [16]
Plus, on another level: When people understand the process of having interested people looking at specific issues, they will take special notice when the polls consistently indicate a strong consensus toward a different direction from where the general publics belief lies. Then other people will take notice and will take a closer look into the matter. This way if something has merit and is being overlooked it has a chance to rise to a level of prominence (this is what is happening with the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS). The other way is what we have today, bad programs kept in place until the damage is so bad that it is changed out of necessity. [16]
>Stuart B:
Disagreements over abortion and gun control, for example, will never be reconciled through an appeal to factual statements about Reality. This sort of disagreement is based on peoples underlying Value Systems. If I place a higher value on getting welfare payments today so my family can eat, and a lower value on a balanced budget now so that my kids don't have to worry about interest on the deficit in 20 years--nothing factual you can say will change my mind. Even appeals to logic will not sway my attitudes. It is logical that it should be infinitely more important to me to keep my kids eating now, than worrying about the size of a deficit that will may be a problem in future years. [16]
>Bob K:
There will never be a chance to reach understanding unless people have a chance to break things down into their different divisions. If one side says abortion is wrong and the other side says it is not, you have the "BASIS FOR WAR" (two sides frozen facing each other). Sooner or later one group will try to use force because, the other side will not listen. This is what is happening. Why not skip the war and get both sides sitting down and listing all the things which "NEED" to be change surrounding the abortion issue which has people choosing abortion as an alternative. [16]
The very least you would accomplish is the finding of radicals who are interested in war. But you would also find people who would gain an understanding of where the other guy is coming from. Among these people you could find a need to solve the problems which lead to abortion. Then the problem becomes smaller because you have less people following the radicals and the radicals have less of a chance to act radical because, they see less people following them. [16]
For me abortion is wrong. I remember the days which made it legal, so I have some understanding why it became legalized. I can live with my belief without feeling that I must rid the world of all that is not right. If others make a bad choice they must live with it. People too often judge other people. There is a higher authority to judge our short stay on this earth. I would rather try and change the things that make people reject a new human life than try to force my belief upon them. There is room for compromise for some of the people in the opposing camps. It is only two camps if we refuse to talk about it, the yes camp and the no camp. There are people who will work toward eliminating the things which cause the problem. This work will open minds so that minds can be changed. Let's give them a chance to change the things which can be changed without the need for war. [16]
ETHICS helps decrease the chance of conflicts. It educates in more than one or two ways. It is about more then separating fact from fiction. It is about teaching people how to live together and work toward a common good. Let me ask you, do we have a "NEED" for that today? You only have to look at the increase in violent crime to give a resounding yes. If we have a need for more understanding in the world we have a need for ETHICS more then ever. Please do not look at ETHICS in the vein that its merit is derived only from the accomplishment of separating fact from fiction. Its biggest value is found in the struggle to find what is of benefit. RESPECT, and UNDERSTANDING needs to combine with a common goal to find solutions which will fulfill needs. When this happens solutions will follow. [16]
>Stuart B:
In a similar way, if my religious faith demands that I hold human life sacred, no appeals to logic, or to factual statements about reality, will get me to change my values. I will abhor and label as "murder" any abortion, for any reason. If my secular system of personal ethics holds individual liberty above all else, then I will assail such religion based attitudes as abhorrent, and an unpardonable infringement on a woman's "right" to control her own body. [16]
>Bob K:
I am not suggesting that you should be forced to change your belief. But, if you try and force your belief on others--this leads to conflict. If I try and force my will on you or if you try and force your will on me the only possible outcome is violence of passion. Do we try and do the thing which makes us human--reason? or do we do battle? Reason tells me that I will pay for my mistakes and my values tell me I should try and help others who I believe, are making errors. First I must try to understand the whole problem of why people believe abortion is their best choice. But if we try to make things happen through force because we are in a hurry, that will lead to more conflict and be counter productive. Because conflict closes minds. A closed mind can not be changed. A search for understanding opens minds and an open mind will gravitate toward what has MERIT. [16]
>Stuart B:
How then, can your ETHICS structure reconcile such value based attitudes when they are in such basic conflict? In my humble opinion, it is the very lack of a common national system of Ethical principles that is the cause of most of the problems in the modern western culture - the United States and Canada alike. [16]
>Bob K:
I believe I have answered this concern which you thought there was no answer to. It is not a matter of absolutes but is a matter of upholding the highest of ethical standards by not believing we are so right that we need to close our mind to where the other person is coming from and then resorting to violence. I have derived benefit for people with my approach. You have set the stage for war and violence. I say never be so sure of yourself that you do not have time to listen to the other persons opinion. What you find may not be an answer but it starts a process which can change minds. Force and violence have to do with destruction. Do you think there is a correlation to the violence in the streets and the lack of an educational tool for the general public? (an educational tool which helps people seek understanding). I think there is a correlation and a need for an educational tool which helps people to better understand our fellow man. [16]
>Stuart B:
(2) Very minor point - that regardless should be addressed because it detracts from the integrity of the rest of your argument. In one of your responses to "TD," you describe an analogy to the Wright Brothers aircraft. You should know that an airplane (unlike a balloon or blimp) is NOT lighter than the air it displaces. [16]
>Bob K:
Good point, even though I did not mean to imply that a plane is lighter than air it could be construed in that manner. Perhaps I should use the word lift instead of having people try and calculate the amount of air passing under the wings (from the speed of the plane), I will look at it when I do the second edition. Thank you for pointing that out. [16]
>Stuart B:
(3) I am afraid that I concur with TD, you are describing a complex bureaucracy; with Study Groups, Issues Boards, Ethics Panels, Newsletters (with editors, etc.). For each of the potential problems that TD raises, you describe another organization. I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to bureaucracies. I am firmly convinced that any bureaucracy will quickly become controlled by those it is supposed to be governing (such as the FAA by the airline industry in the US, and the CRTC by the cable and broadcast industries in Canada). Should a complex structure as you are proposing in response to TD ever come into existence, I have little doubt that it will quickly be controlled by the same power elites as currently control the existing political structures; with the same result of stifled and channeled discussions. Censorship in everything but name. Exactly as now exists in the public media. I would much refer to see an uncontrolled, chaotic environment. It may be less disciplined, and more prone to errors. But it would also be less susceptible to take-over by the power elites. [16]
>Bob K:
I believe you are trying to take the easy way out. Apply this reasoning to the inter-working of the computer and you would get the same answer you are construing about ETHICS. If there were enough people "way back when" saying what you are saying about computers (it's too complex), we would not be typing on the Internet. The fact is that ETHICS is not as complex as you are trying to make it out to be. [16]
I have no trouble arguing the merits of the ETHICS Project because, it is based on very simple principles. We must keep an open mind if we want to be serious about seeking human understanding in our quest to solve human problems and recognize that people look to do the right thing. If they can find what the RIGHT THING might be. It is because you are only looking for solutions in the absolutes of what is right and wrong that you see unmanageable complexity. To error is human. To fail to error, because of doing nothing out of a fear to error, is foolish. [16]
I am looking to give people a chance to do the thing which makes us humans. We have a basic desire to reason. That is why everyone likes to give opinions on one thing or another. We have a basic drive to try and do what is of benefit. If we did not, society would have self-destructed long ago. We need not reach the perfection you are trying to find. But, we need to be part of a process which moves us in that direction or we degenerate. [16]
When we see the insanity of human misery propagating in the things around us, do we fail to try and reason possible solutions because we do not believe we can find an answer? I think not. If we do, people which flip out are justified when they fail to use proper reason because, if there is no solution to the big problem it follows that there is no solution to the smaller problem. [16]
>Stuart B:
I am a firm believer in the principles of Free Enterprise, and Caveat Emptor. Perhaps you could reconsider the bureaucratic structures you are suggesting, and replace them with a more open, free style environment. How about letting any study group at all, however constituted, and however structured, broadcast their ideas over the "network" you are proposing. Then other study groups could (if the desire is there) publish their own opinions on the validity of other groups' arguments. A free market of competing ideas, with a competition between idea rating groups as well. [16]
>Bob K:
You have missed a central point to what stands in the way of knowledge. We do not have time to be experts on all subjects. One of the things ETHICS does is save time by giving all the study groups all the time they need to formulate their arguments. If they do that and they have merit on their side they will pick up followers in opinion polls (like what is happening now with the people which read the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS). If their arguments lack merit then the ETHICS process lets these weak arguments fall under their own weight. When they do that others are sparred wasting time sifting through the garbage. [16]
ETHICS increases knowledge in several ways. First by saving time sifting the garbage. Second by giving people a look at the best points to consider on a subject. Third by giving them information from a system which they trust to supply all the possible information. The people can even read information which the polls consider to be bad if they wish to take the time to read all the archives. The archives will be a part of the data base information supplied by the study groups (which will be following the information induction procedures). ETHICS also increases knowledge in the most important way, by getting people into a process that helps them to train themselves to take a more open minded approach to problem solving. [16]
>Stuart B:
(4) Finally, while I support the fundamental approach you are attempting, to broaden the reach of democratic processes, I think you have omitted a basic assumption. In the prologue to your ETHICS package, you state that people need only 4 things to overcome ignorance. I agree with the 4 you cite. But, I think you have left out the most important. Even if the 4 you suggest are in place, the most important thing that people need to overcome ignorance, is the DESIRE to overcome ignorance. Your description of the ETHICS Project does not appear to address this problem, and I am not optimistic about your probable success. It might perhaps be more likely to achieve some degree of success if it were initially focused on extremely local issues--such as school boards, or local municipal issues, where the level of ignorance may be of less concern, and where the desire to overcome the ignorance may be more easily stimulated. [16]
>Bob K:
You are trying to argue both sides of the argument. Either people have a desire to overcome ignorance or they do not. The same human forces are in place whether they are on national level or if they are on local level. You have implied that people do not have the desire to overcome ignorance. What makes us human is our ability to reason. Our desire to want to do the right thing. If we are denied these two things maybe we have a reason why the numbers of people flipping out are increasing each year. It is time to build a system which helps us do the things which are central to being human. [16]
You have approached ETHICS from the mind set that you need to find answers and have overlooked the greatest benefits found in the search for the answers. Let me ask you: if you work hard to buy a beautiful car and it does indeed take you a very long time to reach that goal, do you only gain from obtaining the car or would you place great value on the hard work you performed to reach that goal? Then suppose you worked hard and you never quite got enough money to get what you wanted, would your work be of no value? Then suppose that the second scenario happened and you got less than you wanted but, obtained something better than you have, wouldn't that be of value? This is the way to look at ETHICS if you want to see it's true MERIT. [16]
>Stuart B:
The reason for my pessimism is my experience that the vast majority of the population neither thinks, nor cares to learn more, about the true intricacies of our real problems. It is why the 10 second TV sound-bite is a successful approach to news broadcasting. People in general do not appear to care about the details. A 10 second simplistic answer is all that most people appear to want. If the general population was more interested in learning the truth (instead of a highly simplified "instant" solution), there would be more documentaries than sit-coms on Television, more detailed news analysis than opinion in the Newspapers, and less Far-Left/Right extremism, less public rapture with the "New-Age" drivel. [16]
>Bob K:
These are symptoms coming from the system which is in place. We learn a lot by what we see others do. That is the way it has been, therefore it is pervasive. Compound this problem with the fact that we put younger and younger people in positions of authority. The young and old have different things to accomplish. The young have a greater need to do the things which will make them secure in later years, therefore they have a greater propensity to hurry because they have less time. There is nothing wrong with this. It is as it should be. But, without a system in place for the older people who have the time to invest in finding solutions at a slower pace you only have in a sense, the young as role models. Young people make a meaningful contribution but we cannot in effect (because of the fast pace of modern society) factor out the older generation's best assets and not see adverse affects. [16]
So when there are so many people wanting the 10 second sound bite it could be just a learned response which was fostered by the lack of a system which gives the people a chance to reason at a time in their life when they are secure enough in their finances. To suggest the snap shot you list above, is proof of people not wanting to reason is not the best approach. We need to try and find reasons why it is happening. So we can deal with the cause. Symptoms can be cured if we can find the reason why people are not doing what makes them human. [16]
I put several quick possible options forward as to why what you observe may not be the whole picture. ETHICS would come up with many more detailed explanation if a study group took up the subject. We should not be so sure of what we believe as to block our vision by closing our mind to different perspectives. [16]
>Stuart B:
How many people have even the most basic comprehension of the principles of economics? Economics is an optional subject that is generally taught only in College or University. How much economic education would you have to give your ETHICS participants before they could even understand the various arguments for and against a balanced budget? How much time and effort would these people have to invest in this exercise before they could form any sort of informed opinion about those arguments? What about some of the other, more contentious subjects such as Abortion, Welfare, Gun-Control? Even to form an informed opinion about the information provided by the polls you suggest would require some meaningful knowledge about statistics, and the psychology of opinion polls (and how they can be biased by the nature of the questions asked). What proportion of the general population do you suppose would care about investing the time and effort necessary to gain sufficient knowledge to make use of the information that the ETHICS project proposes to provide? And how are you going to entice a believer in Astrology into studying things like statistics, psychology, and economics? [16]
>Bob K:
Error! There are truths which apply to micro models. These same truths apply to macro models. The general public have a closer attachment to common sense because they deal with micro models in their everyday work. It is not hard for a working person to figure out that you cannot spend more than you take in, year after year, without ending up at a point in time where you are in big trouble. Now if you're one of the big boys and you think you understand economics and this guy over here needs a deal to get widgets and you need him to get doodads, your knowledge and what you are taking as sense can go against common sense. If you leave the little guy out of the mix you're in big trouble. Five trillion dollars of trouble. [16]
>Stuart B:
And if the majority of the population doesn't care, as it currently appears not to care, what then? Does the ETHICS project result in government by an educated elite? Or does it result in government by an uneducated, ignorant mass. Either solution might be better than the system we have at present (a government by an uneducated, ignorant elite), but at least we should recognize the situation, and be prepared for the consequences. [16]
>Bob K:
We agree that ETHICS is a system which is better than we have now but where we part is where you have underestimated the dynamics at work that ETHICS will tap into. You are looking at the problem like so many do, with the symptoms of society's ills so vivid in your thought. We are all guilty of this error at various times no doubt, because we are so close to the illnesses effects. [16]
This has lead you to what seems to be a logical conclusion, but since it is based on a few wrong assumptions, your conclusions have been shown to be flawed by the ETHICS approach, which is based on firm philosophical ground. People, if they know the true good, will do good. Plus, to free us from the prejudices which make us ignorant we must never be so sure of what we think we know as to not give the other person a chance to speak their piece. [16]
I hope I have not offended you in pointing out your errors. I would like to have your further support with this much needed project. We are in big trouble if we fail to add a search for understanding, respect and reasoning to a world which is exploding around us. Your voice can make a difference even though you live in Canada--a friends value has no boundary. [16]
5.2 ETHICS - The Stuart Burns Essay
>Bob K:
I have sent Dave a special note of thanks for helping me out. I am stronger at arguing concepts than getting the spelling and sentence structure correct some of the time. I always like to have some help making a point clearer or to help me see an error in concept that I maybe arguing. It is foolish to let pride get in the way of finding what has the most merit. I am still waiting for an argument from a person who believes the ETHICS Project lacks merit. There have been none. Perhaps it is time to take a closer look, if you are spinning your wheels (when trying to get people to hear about your issue). ETHICS is a tool to help you get the attention of people. [17]
>Dave W:
Although there were very few errors in this, the few were quite confusing to the reader (such as president for precedent). Here is a corrected version. Thanks for posting it. Dave [17]
TOPICS COVERED IN STUART BURNS ESSAY [17]
1. ETHICS produces diverse benefits from one structure.
2. Why human variables require ETHICS to be constructed in the manner it is being built.
3. Two possible root reasons for human disagreements (cultural differences versus just a lack of understanding what is right).
4. A in-depth look at microcosmic reasoning in the form of analogies. (How the forming of a paradox aids the process of looking for merit.)
5. How ETHICS decreases Bull Crap.
6. One of the structural goals which will keep ETHICS on a steady course. (a level playing field)
7. A philosophical disagreement on there being one right thing.
8. Why the issue of building the ETHICS Project is a top priority.
9. Can knowledge be taught or is it discovered? (Some implications about how this question relates to the ETHICS Project.)
10. The reclaiming of wasted human talent.
11. The role an open mind plays in a honest discussion.
12. The role numerous study groups will play in the writing of the ETHICS procedures.
13. The finding of facts and the teaching of how best to search for merit through practical experience are identifiable products of the ETHICS Project.
14. What is a more important considerations when trying to evaluate moving ahead with the ETHICS Project -- starting the project with a large number of people or improving the number of people who want to search for merit as the project progresses?
15. How ETHICS will progressively reclaim wasted talent from the doldrums of passivity.
16. What is a major factor in the speed at which ETHICS will begin to make an impact on politics?
17. Are there other alternatives to take if ETHICS is not built?
18. The role of local issues in the building of ETHICS.
19. A precedent for believing the ETHICS Project can be structured in a way to prevent the elite power brokers from taking it over.
20. The philosophical foundation of ETHICS.
>Bob K:
length 1116 lines... It would of been wrong to do it in sections because, it all ties together. We need a protocol for single topics when we start conversing on ETHICS@UWSA.COM. [17]
>Stuart B:
Based on a close reading of your response, I will agree that I misunderstood the message of the first package you sent me. I interpreted your description of the ETHICS project as defining a set of organizational structures designed (as an over-simplified description) to educate people on the facts of the issues and collect the resulting opinions for the purpose of guiding government policy directions. On reading your latest package, I am not sure how to understand the ETHICS project. I understand from your writing that there is a heavy emphasis on goals and principles (and I agree with those goals and principles, even if I have some reservations about some of the underlying assumptions). But, there does not appear to be much concrete in the way of means. Am I correct in assuming that this is because the ETHICS project is still in the gestation stages, and that you are only in the very preliminary stages of defining the means towards your goals? [17]
>Bob K:
Yes this is a correct assumption. You could say ETHICS is in a gestation stage if your are looking to see how far along we are toward implementation. In your opening sentence you say you misunderstood the purpose of ETHICS when you first read it. I see you are a person who is most likely very orderly and that you like to be precise. I believe that trait may be pushing you to put ETHICS in a pigeon hole that is too small because, you may try to define ETHICS too sharply in "ONE" direction. The reason that "there does not seem to be much concrete in the way of means" has more than one reason behind it, as does many of the functions which will become a part of ETHICS. [17]
When you first read the LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS it helps to put yourself in the shoes of a person who is doing the 4 aspects. This helps give a person the feel for some of the dynamics at work within the project. My goal in writing the main body of ETHICS was to keep it brief and to only give the most important mechanical components of ETHICS. By not trying to explain the underlying dynamics which come into play, the main body was kept down to 1 3/4 pages. There are several advantages in the way ETHICS has been written. Your interest in the underlying areas have given me the opportunity to reveal to you and others a more detailed picture of the project. Thank you for taking the time to help in this area. Your effort has not gone unnoticed. [17]
This approach may help. Consider ETHICS similar to a house. It is one structure with many different ways to serve the people who use it. A house is a place for shelter and it is a place that supports social bonding for the family. ETHICS is a place to compile and evaluate information and it is a place where people practice one of the highest social functions, which is learning to understand problems by learning to understand why the opposition holds a contrary opinion. [17]
>Stuart B:
Be that as it may, I think I need to correct a mis-impression that you set up throughout your response. The comments I have to offer are in no measure intended to imply that "you cannot cross the river." I fully support what I understand to be your goals and objectives with this project. I am merely taking the time to point out some snags and loose rocks I see in your path, in the hope that thereby I might ease your passage in some small amount. Based on my initial mis-interpretation, I will agree with most of your responses to my critique. But there are some areas where I disagree with your commentary, and some areas where I think you have misunderstood my message. [17]
>Bob K:
People reading this dialogue should realize that I am responding directly to Stuart's words that are contained in this document and that Stuart Burns is referring to an earlier letter. (ETHICS UNDER CRITICAL EXAMINATION SHINES EVEN BRIGHTER [see reference 16]"). Stuart, I have carefully read your entire response and I will do a paragraph by paragraph answer to your concerns. I have not cut any words from your e-mail. I do split a few paragraphs on occasion so that I can be more precise in what is prompting my response. Readers also note there is a chance that some of Stuart's paragraphs have run together in the process of transferring the files several times. [17]
I believe your intentions are exactly as you have stated them in the above paragraph. Honesty is an important element to bring to an ETHICS discussion. It is hard enough to reach understandings without having people hide what they think. We have a very good start toward reaching an understanding. [17]
We are going to do a lot of talking about ETHICS. This is good. I have waited a long time for this to happen. You do not see as of yet, what needs to be done to make ETHICS a reality. You are seeking to define every aspect of ETHICS before you start. This is analogous to trying to teach a child how to hit a baseball by trying to tell him everything he must consider before he steps up to the plate. The "Show Me" stage of ETHICS is about learning at the plate with some instruction before and during your attempts to hit the ball. Kids learn that way and some learn on their own, if they choose to work hard at finding out what works. If this is the direction you are leaning toward, I do not believe your method would work very well. Your method would work better in a laboratory where results are more in line with the laws of physics. The human variables will require trial and error because, there are to many things to consider. If ETHICS were too be completely defined before construction was started one of 2 things would happen. We would either be bogged down in endless debate as to what would be the best course of action or at some point the group with the most power would create ETHICS, in a manner which suited their personal interests and the little guy could be left out and not have a voice. [17]
>Stuart B:
To that end, I will offer the following additional comments, and responses to your critique of my previous comments. (1) The basic premise ETHICS is built on. To quote from various places in your response: "If people know the good they will do what is right when push comes to shove. ... Most political or philosophical disagreements are caused by people not understanding where the other guy is coming from and most often they are arguing about semantics and actually agree on the central issue but do not know it. ... People basically want to do what is right and fair. If they can understand where the other guy is coming from and evaluate where the needs are and what the pay offâs will be if they fulfill the need, then they will make the best decisions. ... We have a need for more understanding in the world. ... RESPECT, and UNDERSTANDING needs to combine with a common goal to find solutions which will fulfill needs. When this happens solutions will follow. People look to do the right thing. If they can find what, THE RIGHT THING, might be. ... People if they know the true good will do good. [17]
On the whole I agree with and support your position that we need more calm discussion, mutual understanding, and cooperative efforts to achieve common goals. Societies originated as (related) groups of individuals gathered together to coordinate collective efforts towards mutually desirable goals. Societies as an evolutionary strategy, have succeeded because coordinating the efforts of many individuals towards a common goal has proved, in general, to be more successful than one individual alone. So I support the efforts of the ETHICS project in its attempts at identifying our common goals, and aiding the coordination of our collective efforts. [17]
>Bob K:
We are in agreement on a key goal. ("I agree with, and support your position that we need more calm discussion, mutual understanding, and cooperative errors to achieve common goals"). Plus we may agree on the assumption that a basic instinct is to try and do the right thing. [17]
>Stuart B:
I do perceive a couple of difficulties with the details of this premise, however. First, my own experience suggests to me that most contentious (as opposed to superficial) political and philosophical disagreements are NOT the result of differences in semantics, but instead result from basic differences in personal belief systems, and the resulting differences in values. [17]
>Bob K:
Possible disagreement. I am open to changing my opinion, but this philosophical argument will be best argued in the future after we gain some experience through the ETHICS process. It is not an obstacle which should inhibit preceding with the ETHICS project. I look forward to the day when we can take this subject up with hindsight. Perhaps there will be a blend of both of our lines of reasoning on this subject. We seem to be arguing about which cup has more good in it, when it does not really matter because our choice is such that we are choosing benefit either way. So that the ETHICS Project does not get bogged down bandying words and as a result stops moving toward implementation, it is necessary to chose good in any proportion to start with. Then when experience tells us which cup has more benefit we will chose the best cup. The "Show Me" stage let's us choose both cups. So this is only a snag if we freeze and do nothing but talk about philosophy and what theory may be better. [17]
>Stuart B:
This is not to suggest that people cannot or should not sit down and discuss these differences, and explore where there might be some common areas for agreement and compromise (which is what I am beginning to understand ETHICS is all about). It is rather to suggest that there will be areas of disagreement between people that will not be open to compromise. It is to suggest that these areas are larger and more significant the greater the cultural diversity of the people participating in the disagreements or discussions. [17]
>Bob K:
You maybe correct. I believe the ETHICS approach will go a long way to shed some light on this subject. But the ETHICS procedures may show different cultures are not as different as you believe. My feet are in the opposite camp until I see your logic proven. Plus we may only be disagreeing on what are the root definitions of what the right thing may be. It is possible your root cultural right thing is actually above the ground and you are mistaking it for the root right thing. "All people want to try and do the right thing," and whatever their culture defines as the right thing is open to change over time if they gain a better understanding of what the big picture is in regard to the survival of society. But letâs pick this up many years from hence. Unless necessity or leisure beckons a need to address this issue, there are other areas which need attention in the building of ETHICS. [17]
>Stuart B:
For example, you state "...the common sense of looking at problems in the microcosm of the working class perspective combined with the principles of the ETHICS project is all we need to improve our country." You will have an interesting challenge if you wish to convince me that the "microcosm of the working class perspective" is the best source of solutions to the problems we face. (I do agree on the value of the principles of the ETHICS project.) [17]
>Bob K:
Perhaps an overstatement. There are things to be discovered in the process of building ETHICS. I will take the challenge up about microcosmic reasoning shortly. [17]
>Stuart B:
It is my humble opinion that the "microcosm of the working class perspective" (the way I choose to define it) is the *source* of most of our problems. I am not at the moment, of the opinion the "working class perspective" is actually the "majority opinion" (depending, of course, on how you choose to define it). [17]
>Bob K:
This is a difference in definition. Majority opinion and working class microcosmic reasoning are different as I see it. I am thinking more along the lines of when the majority of the working class has lost sight of what the microcosmic opinion would be if they used it. When a poor majority opinion is held it is more about following the leader blindly than the microcosmic picture. Not enough people using microcosmic reasoning to reconcile their opinions is the problem. ETHICS would facilitate this refocusing of opinions toward the merits of the microcosmic truths (the little picture) that relate to the macro truths (the big picture). [17]
Majority opinion is based more so on emotions today (i.e. "I need to protect myself"). A majority emotional pack mentality is "I am not going to listen to anything which discusses my pork unless it is an increase." What surrounds that protection is mostly not considered by the pack mentality. As it turns out, too often not considering the consequences surrounding the self protection comes back to cause more damage in the long run. The people who have become addicted to government programs, who would not give them up for anything, and would never consider talking about anything other than keeping what they have, have set the stage to lose it all. The effects of the US deficit will prove this point, in the not too distant future. Social unrest could be in the cards if we implode our tax base. [17]
The ETHICS Project is going to remove obstacles which have made reasoned thought more labor intensive than the possible payoff by creating an environment where like-minded people can develop their arguments before they get picked apart or are ambushed. Ambushed, without just cause based upon unwarranted emotional fears. The how part, is in the 4 basic aspects of ETHICS. [17]
Two more points on microcosmic reasoning. When people have a need for something, they improvise with whatever they have. Since the big picture is not easily accessible the microcosmic approach to understanding is used more by the non-experts. The experts use it but the working class will be even more predisposed to using the little picture to explain the big picture. [17]
Lastly, on microcosmic reasoning. When people of poor majority opinion start to search for merit by trying to understand their problems through microcosmic reasoning, they will be faced with a paradox. When the little picture does not match the big picture, where their poor majority opinion is residing, their minds must try to resolve the paradox. ETHICS will help people see the paradox. When this paradox is recognized by the people seeking merit, minds are placed in a position for meaningful change to take place. [17]
Ross Perot has been very effective in opening minds to change, using what I have been talking about. He has placed a paradox in the peoples minds who listen to him by using the microcosmic approach to reasoning. People were trotting along not considering the National Debt and then Ross started pointing out the microcosm that a person cannot spend more than he/she takes in or one day there will be big trouble. The paradox started changing popular opinion. [17]
ETHICS will help the working class play an important rule in government decision-making because when more people are able to pick out the bull crap and have the mechanism to sound the alarm, half of the bull crap will not even be presented. Having less bull crap is only one of many benefits from this uniquely structured house, called ETHICS. [17]
>Stuart B:
If the end result of the ETHICS process is the establishment of policies based on the most popular opinions, and not necessarily the "best" solutions, then you must realize that you may be imposing (by the force of majority opinion) a solution that may be totally unacceptable to many others. Even if theirs may be properly informed opinions as generated through the ETHICS processes, and even if they understand the reasons, needs, and values of the majority, some otherwise calm and rational people will take great (and possibly violent) exception to the imposition of a majority opinion. [17]
>Bob K:
You seem to be thinking the weaker argument can beat the stronger argument when the playing field is level. I believe I see something, in your approach to ETHICS, which may be making you lose your footing. You seem to have an urgent need to achieve perfection which is placing a time constraint on the process which you are seeing. This is not the ETHICS approach. As long as people are willing to hold opposing opinions ETHICS will provide a refuge to search for merit. What is right will win in the long haul with the playing field I have in mind. [17]
Since your line of reasoning has a different approach then how I see things. You are worried the end result maybe different then the intended result? If we skip the underlying philosophies and look at the project in real life to see how it is developing, there is no reason to believe we will slip under the water and drown. The intent of ETHICS is to produce opinions based more toward the best solutions. We would certainly want to take care that the end result stays as true to the intent as possible. The "Show Me" stage will help us traverse these slippery rocks on the river floor. [17]
In any event I believe you are describing something which looks more like the present system. Plus, just to clarify so others do not lose their footing, ETHICS would indirectly influence government policy as an educational tool. It is different from initiative and referendum where the poll directly makes policy. [17]
>Stuart B:
Secondly, I perceive a problem in the idea of there being a RIGHT THING. Now, I will agree that in any particular set of circumstances, for a particular individual, there will be a RIGHT THING that is objectively determinable. But I disagree with what I perceive to be the implied assumption that my RIGHT THING in these circumstances, should be the same as your RIGHT THING in those same circumstances. Or, to put things more concretely, if the two of us sat down to calmly discuss some difference of opinion over what some policy direction should be on some particular topic, then I will not guarantee that we will come to some common understanding as to what the goals of that policy should be. [17]
>Bob K:
We do not agree. I believe this could be another case of definition though. Your good is relative to a different set of variables than the one I am looking at, perhaps! This moss covered wet rock protruding out of the river will be better to by-pass for now because it is not necessary that we step on it. After the ETHICS Project shines some bright light on it, it will dry out and someday someone can see who is right. In any event I see benefit from people trying to understand each other. Plus I see a chance to agree on collateral issues. These agreements could lead to an atmosphere where more compromises are possible. Under ETHICS we would live in a more harmonious state until the day we both find the true right thing. [17]
>Stuart B:
To take an example where we already seem to have a difference in basic values - your approach to the "problem" of abortion is to seek "solutions" that will minimize the need for women to resort to abortions. You do this because, to you abortion is wrong, so to you the RIGHT THING in this scenario is to minimize the need for abortions. But my values are such that I consider the woman's choice of whether or not to have an abortion is none of your business. My RIGHT THING in this situation is to keep government policy out of areas of that I consider to be strictly personal concerns. So you would have a hard time justifying to me any investment in "things which need to be changed surrounding the abortion issue" purely on the basis of minimizing recourse to abortions. (You may, of course, be able to find other justifications, but that would be a different topic.) [17]
>Bob K:
Agreement on collateral issues are a biggie (remember the house with many uses). It will happen just by putting people in contact with each other in an atmosphere which maintains the highest of ethical standards. My personal experience in promoting the ETHICS Project has been that in my push to gain recognition for ETHICS, I have started out to accomplish numerous tasks, some of which were not accomplished. But, by trying to accomplish some of those failed tasks I was lead to other conquests. I see the same thing happening to the people who enter a study group to pursue what has merit with an open mind. Some battles they will win and others they will be better off by trying and failing than if they never tried.(for some of the reasons I have already stated). [17]
A point of clarification on the abortion issue. Since we are not discussing the merits or lack of merit surrounding abortion in this exchange and are discussing ETHICS, I have been careful to leave my position out of the central abortion issue. There are people who believe abortion is wrong, for them, but support the right for a woman to choose. Where I stand is not necessary for this discussion, so it is left open. It is my intent to only keep one issue to debate before me, "ETHICS." But, I maintain that whatever issues the people have a concerns about, we would be better off as a society if we had a system that helped us understand everything surrounding them. People could make a more informed decision versus following the opinions of other people. [17]
I have opinions on other issues, like the US National Debt, that support my reasoning. ETHICS was spawned from the National Debt governmental insanity. There is no other issue pushing my immediate agenda. The other issues, which ETHICS will help the people deal with, are a very big bonus and I look forward to the day when we have a system which can help us better understand them. [17]
I fear that without the benefits of ETHICS, which I have been explaining, we will even miss another large benefit if things get real bad. ETHICS could also be a ray of hope for better days to come when the little guy starts feeling the squashing pressure of a shrinking economy brought on by the bleeding off of their wealth to pay interest on a past folly. [17]
I fear environmental concerns are going to be forgotten in our haste to balance the budget and to put food on the tables, only to realize we created another disaster just as dangerous as the National Debt. Some discussions on the environment would ease my worry. But, that is not even an agenda which will draw me away from the debate about the merits of ETHICS. Sometimes the order in which we do things is most important. I see the debate about the merits of ETHICS as being at the top of the list. After that is accomplished we can gain a tool to help us solve other things people believe are problems. [17]
When ETHICS is successful, we will have a tool that we need to find out what else we need to deal with. That is the way I look at it. But I encourage everyone interested in any issue, regardless of what side they support, to pursue that issue through the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM. This is a system which will help us understand what to deal with based on thoroughly reasoned information. What we have now is; "trust me the check is in the mail." "I will take care of you." "We know what we are doing. We are experts." It is time for the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM. I see nothing to suggest there is not a good reason for a real change. Like the real change which would come from ETHICS. [17]
>Stuart B:
(2) Minor Point - You state that "human ignorance is the lack of human understanding." This is not strictly correct. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge (information about reality). Lack of understanding is the lack of meaning, or the lack of the comprehension of the consequences or implications of that knowledge. I think the differences between these two concepts is one reason why I mis-understood the message of your first package. It is one thing to teach people knowledge. It is another to try to help them gain an understanding of that knowledge. The first is quite simple in comparison to the second, as I think you realize. [17]
>Bob K:
Good point. I am giving understanding two meanings which did throw you a curve ball. We have human understanding of knowledge (something possessed) and human understanding (a state of mind which leaves the mind open to the reasons, why opinions are the way they are). They are different types of knowledge. A matter of definitions once again. [17]
You also raise a point which I take exception to. Is it possible to teach knowledge? Is knowledge something that the wise can bestow on the not-so-fortunate, or is it something that the individual must discover when he/she puts their mind in the open position? Your statement supports the former. I say the latter example is correct. Perhaps a minor point of clarification that you may agree with. But perhaps not so minor a point, since one of our goals is to change poor opinions. [17]
>Stuart B:
(3) You state that "Average people do not need to be economists to know the ... economic engine has a misfire." I agree. But, I think you then use this statement to argue that the people do not need to know economics to understand how to fix the economy. Here I disagree. To recognize that we have a problem, at the sorry stage of affairs we are now in, is not difficult. It is like seeing smoke and flame billowing from the factory next door. It doesn't take a genius to tell that you have a problem. But it does take some fairly expert knowledge to know how to fix the problem. The superficial solution is to call 911 - let someone else handle it. The simplistic solution is to throw water on the flames. But if itâs an oil fire, that will just make it worse. If certain chemicals are involved, you get a toxic cloud; and so forth. That's why Firemen get paid what they do, they are educated. They are as much specialists in their field, as the economist is in his (some would say even more so). The same argument applies to the management of, and interpretation of, the opinion polls you suggest should be an integral part of the organizational structures of ETHICS. [17]
>Bob K:
I cannot argue this reasoning, I believe it to be sound. But, I think where we went astray is that you are assuming that the experts opinions would be left out of the discussion. That was never my intention with ETHICS. I want everyone to participate who can act in an ethical manner. Actions are the only exclusion to ETHICS. But everyone gets a fair crack at each other after the arguments come out of the study group. A level playing field will clear away the bull crap from the so-called experts who put personal gain before merit. [17]
With this said, let's go to your fire analogy. If the people were ready to throw water on a fire and were presented with expert information that the fire was an oil fire, and the experts opinion was that if they threw water on it that it was going to get worse, they would be faced with a paradox. I believe I see your earlier concern about the end result differing form the intent of ETHICS if this did not happen. If we get all the cards on the table, people looking to do what is best will make the best choices. But what will also happen is that if the experts try to say it is oil and it is not, some little guy with common sense is going to spot the crap and use ETHICS to sound an alarm. Plus, sometimes experts can overlook things. Plus, ETHICS will produce more experts and perhaps they will be more qualified. Do not underestimate the talent we are wasting by failing to provide opportunities for people to discover their potential, when they get involved working on what interests them. [17]
>Stuart B:
(4) In a number of places, you emphasize that the ETHICS project is less about facts than about "trying to understand what the other person's concerns are ... identifying needs of other people as well as our own needs and evaluating what the benefits may be if the needs are fulfilled." It would be my assumption that one cannot gain mutual understanding, objectively evaluate benefits, or come to a common acceptance of a mutually desirable goal, without a mutual understanding of the facts of the issues involved. You also state that "what is central is the subtle removal of prejudices standing in the way of understanding problems." Forgive me if I interpret this to mean the separation of fact (the way things really are) from opinion (the way we possibly may mistakenly think things are). When you say "prejudices close the mind from looking for alternatives because we think we know something which we do not," you are highlighting the differences between facts and opinions. In order to eliminate prejudices, we need to replace opinion with fact. [17]
>Bob K:
Setting aside any other possible argument I may have with what you just stated, none of which are major, I want to focus on the final sentence. What is the best way to replace opinion with fact? You believe you have a formula and a strategy to replace opinion with fact. I can honestly tell you I am not certain that you do or you do not. But if you do I want to give you a chance to show me how it is done by having you head a study group. I would be most pleased if you are successful, and you could take that statement to the bank. I would support you in any way that I could to help you succeed because, this is a goal of the "show me" stage of ETHICS. I do not claim to have a lock on the proper procedure to achieve this goal of replacing opinion with fact. [17]
What you think you have may lead you in another direction once you get into the project (if you join as an innovator heading a study group). You may find you are correct or you are wrong, or you may help others to find the best procedures to guide ETHICS because, others may learn from something you put forward. People willing to try and willing to make errors is what I am looking for to make ETHICS all that it can be. [17]
The way I am looking at prejudice is a state of mind that is not in a position that is open to possible change, even if we were to have proper opinion based on proper facts. If the other side perceives our mind is closed to their position, it would not be likely that they would sit down and listen to our reasoning. So it is better to be in a position that we are never 100% sure when we sit down. Then we have a chance to both hear the other side out and possibly learn we are in error, and if we are in fact holding the best opinion then we have the opportunity to have the opposition hear what we say. [17]
I like your determination to try and arrive at fact. I think you can make a valuable contribution in this area. If you're lucky enough in a lifetime to have a chance to be involved in something which can make a real difference in a society that is degenerating, it seems like an odd choice to protect your leisure time or your pride. (Sorry for the hard pitch. It is only because I see merit in a lot of what you are saying and want you on the team). [17]
>Stuart B:
As I suggested in the article I attached to my last contribution, there are at least two basic ways to replace opinion with fact. The simplest is to provide evidence in support of a particular statement about reality until there is agreement that sufficient evidence is available to justify the classification of the statement as fact rather than opinion. The harder approach is to change the individual's attitude towards the integrity of the source of the statement, or the consistency that the statement has with the individual's prior knowledge. Regardless of which approach is taken, what is happening in the attempt to overcome the prejudice is the replacement of opinion with fact. So separating fact from opinion, if it is not now a core part of the foundation of ETHICS, had better become one. Much of the rest of your arguments about overcoming prejudice, and ignorance, promoting mutual understanding, and a common approach to the problems of our societies, depends on basing the calm and rational discussions that you suggest are the core processes of ETHICS (on facts rather than opinions). Opinions are fine when it comes to discussing values. But when you are attempting to understand the issues, the benefits, the tradeoffs, and the consequences of potential solutions, the discussions had better be based on more than just your opinion versus mine. Otherwise the whole ETHICS process will collapse in a pile of "Well, I don't agree!" After all, isn't that what overcoming ignorance is all about? [17]
>Bob K:
Yes! That is what needs to happen to overcome ignorance. I look forward to seeing the empirical results from the "SHOW ME STAGE" of your study group. [17]
But I believe you have left out a human variable in your line of thought. It seems like you have the mechanics down but you are not dealing with how to open the mind to change. You seem like when you have the true facts you are looking to bombard the opposition with it. Because you may believe it is possible to teach knowledge. I may be reading to much into your position but if I am not, the variable you need to reconcile is that only the individual can discover knowledge by first positioning the mind in an open position. [17]
I believe we are in agreement in the assumption that we need to pursue facts diligently. We may differ a little on some of the procedures which are going to be tested in the "Show Me" stage. At the end of the show me stage, we will be looking for something that is the best of the best solutions, or a combination of the best solutions to find facts. The more study group pilot projects we have a chance to examine, the closer we can come to reaching perfection when we decide what procedures will govern ETHICS (or so it seems to me). I will deal with your assumption that it is a necessary to always be successful in the search for facts shortly. [17]
>Stuart B:
You state "the major benefit which we will receive from ETHICS will come from people participating in the search for facts, not the finding of those facts. It is (the) search for understanding which is most important, if we are to improve the human condition. The finding of facts is secondary." I regret that I simply cannot agree with this position. I agree that the "search for understanding ... is most important." But, I cannot agree that this search will be at all successful if there is not a commonly accepted foundation of facts. The process of the search for facts may indeed be helpful in building smooth working relationships between people, and in aiding the generation of mutual understanding. But, if there is no success in finding mutually agreed upon facts, then that mutual understanding will never be achieved for lack of a common ground on which to base any agreements. If there is no success in the search for mutually agreed upon facts, and common grounds, then the teamwork that is the essence of the participation in ETHICS will disintegrate, for lack of results. [17]
>Bob K:
We must face the reality that every study group will not achieve success in arriving at truth at any given point in time. But, if the people participating learn to respect the rights of others to disagree in an ethical manner, that is of great value or so it seems to me. I see this as a learning experience where the participants gain a useful tool to be used at another time which will equip the users with something to solve less challenging issues. So we disagree on what is of more importance, the finding of fact, or the searching for facts. Both cups have benefit and we are choosing both. "No problem" from where I am sitting. Sometimes we get the brass ring and reach agreement and other times we are better off for trying to reach agreement than if we never tried. Remember the house with many benefits. This is two benefits derived from the same structure. [17]
>Stuart B:
(5) Minor point - In a couple of places, you suggest that "what makes us human is the ability to reason." In my, admittedly cynical experience, most people are best distinguished by their lack of "reason." Does this mean that I should regard them as non-human? Sometimes, I wonder. But in general I would agree with your classification. You also include "our desire to do the right thing". I would prefer to regard this last as a consequence of the former, rather than as separate defining characteristic. I think we could have some interesting discussion on how people (should?) figure out what the "right thing" is. But for now I will grant the definition. [17]
>Bob K:
It will be an interesting philosophical debate. If we find the leisure time someday or if necessity does not push for an answer at an earlier time, we will let it rest. [17]
>Stuart B:
I think where we differ, and why you might conclude that I was arguing both sides of the argument, is that while you appear to think that most people do have a desire to overcome their ignorance and therefore have an incentive to participate and take advantage of the ETHICS project, I do not. I believe that the ETHICS project, if/when successful will offer great advantages to our minority of people who are interested in overcoming their ignorance, and in investing time and effort in exploring the issues that face us. But most people, in my own experience, would much rather adopt the opinions and attitudes of their mother/ father/ brother/ priest/ leader/ whatever and invest their time and efforts on more immediate matters (like the ball game this evening). [17]
>Bob K:
This is the same as the argument that everyone has the ability to leave the world a little better. But, many do not do anything. Whether people live a useful life or whether they do not, does not take away from the fact that they have the ability to make a little difference. The real question is can we build a system that gets more people to use their ability to reason. I say yes and the system is ETHICS. [17]
We are only disagreeing on a relative term that is not important, when we say people are not using the ability that has been afforded them. The amount of people not using their ability at any given point in history can change drastically if we realize the human species can solve problems which he/she can define. Which cup do we chose? To do nothing or to do something? [17]
At this date in history, what is more important is that the people who are interested in the ETHICS project will be doing something useful for people who want information. If we are successful in building the ETHICS Project the numbers of people in the disinterested group would decrease as time passes. ETHICS will get a fair share of them liberated from their couches by letting them have an opportunity to participate in whatever issues they are interested in. The figures will be far less than I would like. There will be more people becoming involved in trying to make what touches their lives more reasonable than there would without ETHICS. If we get lucky and hit the jackpot, others will come after we are gone to solve problems which we have missed, and ETHICS will continue to claim more and more couch potatoes at an increasing rate into the 23 century. I do not think it is a matter of gaining a vast majority of people all at once. What raises my expectations most is the potential over the long haul. [17]
The opportunity for immediate improvements to the democratic system are within our reach. If we find those people who are interested in building an information system similar [to this]. The percentage of the whole population whosâ interest is in the area of a more reasoned approach to problem solving does not really matter as to whether or not it should build it. The ETHICS approach will improve the percentages over time. The only thing that does matter is that we find enough of the like minded people to help us get it off the ground. There are enough of them out there if we can find them. We need to gain recognition to find them. This is no easy task. The Internet is playing an integral part in this task. But, we need voices of support to get people to slow down long enough to look at it. [17]
>Stuart B:
I believe that the cause of this narrow/local/immediate focus is a matter of mis-placed values and a feeling of powerlessness. Many people feel that an investment in the political process is just not worth the return. What proportion of the eligible electorate is actually registered [to vote] (a small effort)? What proportion of them actually vote (a small effort)? What proportion of them actually participate in some (any) candidate's campaign? What proportion of the electorate take the time and effort to understand the issues to the best of their abilities in the admittedly limited information environment they currently have? Most voters' knowledge of the issues in any election comes from the TV news, and perhaps a smattering of newspaper stories. This is certainly less than is readily freely available even now. Are you suggesting that ETHICS will revolutionize this relatively low degree of average citizen participation? I would tend to think that the beneficiaries of ETHICS will be that small minority that already take better advantage than the average [person] of the other information resources that are available. [17]
>Bob K:
You are describing apathy. I dealt with how I believe apathy can be reduced in Lady Liberty. So I will pass on the apathy argument. I am saying that over time ETHICS will reduce apathy. The amount of apathy reduction is relative to the speed in which people put their mouth and effort into building the ETHICS Project. But for today, even if it starts small and progresses slowly, I am happy with an improvement from where we are today. But this is not to say that I am seeing a minimum impact in the near future. The time is right for major changes. I do not think it is productive to try and measure the amount of involvement and benefit that will be generated in a specific time frame. We will push ahead with the project, so that we have a tool ready to be used when people realize they need a tool to deal with apathy. To do nothing is wrong when the possibilities are so great for improving our situation. For me I see merit in only one direction. That is toward implementation of the ETHICS Project. Whenever people feel they want to make a real change they will not need to wait for an idea to develop. ETHICS is here today it only need people that are ready to support it. [17]
>Stuart B:
I will freely admit (and actually fervently hope) that I have "underestimated the dynamics at work, which ETHICS will tap into." Don't stop just because of one cynic. Don't stop even if I should be unfortunate enough to be right. The promise is enough that the investment should be made. As you describe it, the ETHICS project should reap benefits even if I am right. But, you might spend some small amount of time considering what to do about the (hopefully remote) possibility that the cynical view is more right than wrong. That too might pay dividends. One of the discussion groups might generate some innovative ideas for increasing the participation rate. [17]
>Bob K:
We are in agreement here. I believe your reasoning to be sound. I hope this essay has shown that we are more in agreement than we both originally thought. I also hope that I have been able to convey the fact that the project is being constructed in the best possible manner. A manner which will allow the cynics to make needed changes if their concerns can be illuminated in the "Show Me Stage".
>Stuart B:
(6) "Do you think there is a correlation to the violence in the streets and the lack of an educational tool for the general public?" Yes I do. But, probably not the way you think. It is my opinion (word chosen with care) that the primary cause of the modern disintegration of our societies is the lack of a common set of Values. There is no longer any sense of community, except in isolated cases. It may be due in large part to the fact that there are just too many people in too little a space, with too divergent sets of values. We no longer share a common vision of what our collective goals should be, and how we should be getting there. I think that what we need is some vehicle with which to re-ignite a sense of common purpose. We need a way to instill in all people a common set of social values. We need some way to overcome the divisiveness caused by divergent sets of values. That is the primary reason why I am taking the time and effort to participate in my small way in your ETHICS project. [17]
>Bob K:
I see ETHICS as having the potential of doing the things you have just described. I believe you see the possibility also. Even if what you see in ETHICS is not as prominent of a cup with benefit, it is better then a cup with no benefit. I see nothing else with the potential for benefit which can come close to ETHICS. Plus, what I see is great possibility of benefits if ETHICS reaches implementation. I am convinced that there will be great benefits because, benefits are like porky pine quails on a porky pine when it comes to ETHICS. They are popping out all over ETHICS; benefits seem to be clinging to everything ETHICS touches. [17]
>Stuart B:
I think that one of the other ways to accomplish this re-establishment of a sense of community is to divide into smaller societies. I no longer see any great benefit to be had from huge monolithic and bureaucratic nation-states. There is nothing positive that I can see that is delivered by the National level government of the United States or Canada, that could not be more effectively delivered by more local governments. With the Free Trade band-wagon now in full roll, I see few further advantages to continuing with that level of government. Hell, maybe we can also do away with the State/Provincial governments too. I am sure there must better ways to deliver the services at a more local level where the people who care, are the people who manage. I also think that the ETHICS project would stand a better chance of really taking off if part of it were to focus more closely on some place's local issues with more immediate interest to the people. Many people feel powerless to influence the larger government structures. Perhaps, if by focusing on the smaller, more local, government structures, people would feel less powerless. Remember, success is catching. Small successes generate larger ones. [17]
>Bob K:
It is my hope that ETHICS is used on all levels of government. You are right on target when you say people perceive local issues to be of a more immediate interest. We have a house with many diverse rooms and benefits. Which issues get ETHICS up and flying does not matter, we will choose both cups of benefits. [17]
>Stuart B:
(7) I do not see the relationship between your reference to the "inter-working of the computer" and my concern that any organizational structure designed to make or influence political decisions will quickly become controlled by the "Power Elite." A computer chip may be complex but, it does not attempt to corrupt its processing rules for its own benefit. Any organizational structure with any role to play in the politics of power, no matter how simple, will (in my admittedly cynical opinion) quickly be corrupted by those running the organization for the personal benefit of those doing the running. I do now understand that the practical organizations you are suggesting to implement the principles and goals of ETHICS are not yet fully defined, and are not in any event a primary product of the ETHICS project but, merely one suggested means to an end. [17]
>Bob K:
The founding fathers of the United States built something that withstood the corrupting forces for a long time. But, it has been corrupted similar to the way you have stated political forces would take over any system. It can ever be argued there is an elite takeover. We are heading toward a two class society, but the founding fathers gave us a mechanism to make corrections. So, perhaps it is possible to build something even longer term. The American government is a great pilot project to look at to see where corruption set in. If we look to see where corruption set in we can define it. Then we can model ETHICS with the same correcting device the US Constitution uses or we can give ETHICS a new and improved version. The only things which are impossible are the things we fail to try to build. [17]
The computer analogy was used to show that we can solve complex problems that society once thought were impossible. The human variables are only another set of problems that seem impossible to solve because, so many people see the problem as being too big. I see ETHICS doing the things I have been describing, and more, if we can only gain the recognition we need to find the people we need to build it. That "IF" is a big one at this precarious point in time. A clear voice of support is most important at this stage. Your help with a study group is secondary at this date. But, that does not diminish the importance of any study group work that could follow, which may be spectacular, useful, or just laborious. Things need a proper order sometimes. So, a resounding voice in support is the first cup of benefit I am seeking. I would be very happy to add your name to the ETHICS INFORMATION MONUMENT in the chronological order people come ABOARD. The early comers will receive a most prestigious spot because these early voices in the vast darkness are voices that will help find the others we need to make ETHICS a reality. [17]
>Stuart B:
I am still raising a caution that any organizational structure that can prevent or permit (or otherwise police) the participation in ETHICS of people or ideas, can quickly be subverted to serve the ends of those running the organization. Any such organization can be quickly hijacked by those who are already in positions of political power. My suggestions in this regard were merely an off-the-cuff idea of a way to prevent subversion and hijacking from derailing the benefits of the ETHICS project. Although I will readily admit that my opinion of political structures is cynical, I do not consider it fair to characterize my concerns in this regard as "looking for solutions in the absolutes of what is right and wrong" or seeing "unmanageable complexity." Nor am I trying to reach the perfection you suggest. As I have stated repeatedly, I am in full support of the efforts of the ETHICS project. I am merely trying, in my small way, to assist your efforts by offering what I see are some pitfalls you may be facing. [17]
>Bob K:
Your concerns are noted, which is the first step in dealing with them. Your concerns are very valid, and I tell you I am very thankful that you have taken the time to put them forward. I assure you that these issues will be on the minds of the people who submit the final draft of ETHICS for implementation. [17]
"I am in full support of the efforts of the ETHICS project," because of this sentence I feel safe in saying "WELCOME ABOARD." But, I will hold off on posting an official welcome aboard until I give you the opportunity to possibly add a few more chosen sentences to this one. We have shared too many thoughts for me to cut and paste together your official ETHICS supporting statement. This letter and the previous letter will become a permanent part of the important letters which help in the building of the ETHICS Project. I would like to afford you the opportunity if you so choose to compose a short paragraph that will be used to gain the attention of others so that they may slow down long enough to take a look at the ETHICS Project. [17]
>Stuart B:
(8) Finally, I would like to see the "firm philosophical ground" upon which ETHICS is based. I too have a firm philosophical ground underpinning my philosophical beliefs. It would be interesting to compare notes. Since my "conclusions have been shown to be flawed by the ETHICS approach," I would suspect that we differ on some of the underlying assumptions. By the way, from my reading of your response, I do not feel that my conclusions have been shown to be flawed. To be sure, I have mis-interpreted a few items in your initial package, as have you of a few items in my response. On the whole, I would perceive so far merely a difference of opinion on a few points, and a difference in basic values on a couple of others. Looking forward to future news of the ETHICS project, and any feedback you might wish to offer on these comments. [17]
>Bob K:
The philosophical ground I am standing upon was laid out in 399 BC when a person who some people claimed was the wisest to have ever lived was executed by drinking hemlock poison. He gave up his life for what could be considered many reasons. [17]
But, all of the reasons people may speculate about (as being reason for his execution) seem to emanate from a core of "POSSIBLE" truth he held as being too valuable to reject without just cause. He believed it was a person's duty to keep an open mind. Since he spent a lifetime giving people the chance to prove him wrong and no one ever did, his gift to future societies is not his execution but a chance for others to realize the value of keeping an open mind when trying to solve societies problems. [17]
It was closed minds which stole this man's life. It is closed minds which we face today, that are still the most dangerous. The destructive power of closed minds are about to steal our freedom. The destructive power of closed minds, following blindly, are about to kill my country. Let's open this gift from the father of ETHICS and see how much fruit will spring forth from the seed he planted 2394 years ago. [17]
There is much confusion coming from the things which were written about him. Some people still believe that he thought this thing or that thing, as they did in 399 BC. I believe he was honest in what he said. He knew nothing for sure. So if someone reads this and says different, they hold a poor opinion. He was a poor working class man. He was a veteran, who fought in his country's wars. He gave every thing he could afford to give his country and his fellow democratic citizens, and he gave us a much better chance to discover the power of approaching problems with an open mind. [17]
Another contribution to the Electronic Town Hall Initiative Comprehensive System is the position he maintained at his hurried trial. The words, of a person who knows they are facing death, have a way of ringing true. He maintained that if he was given the proper time to speak without being silenced (silenced by the most powerful and the people with closed minds--this is where the level playing field offered by ETHICS comes from), that he had little doubt that what had merit would win. [17]
It is time to prove his position was correct. He who comes out on top when all is said and done is the wisest, and this issue will not be measured with the ending of a life. It will be measured in the well being of the human society or the passing of a society into degeneration. [17]
Now that I have entered this topic of where credit should be given. There needs to be a few things said on the subject. I fear this thing called "CREDIT." Many will not look at the ETHICS Project because they think Ross Perot will get credit. Many will not look at ETHICS because, someone they do not like supports ETHICS and may have earned credit before they do. Many minds have been closed and will be closed to what has merit due to this strange human weakness. Some people fear, in a strange way, who may have found merit first. If anything is responsible for stopping, the ETHICS MOVEMENT, and other things which hold MERIT it is the green eyed monster called jealousy. [17]
Jealousy Lurks and preys on the pathway called credit, which leads to the watering hole called merit. Those who seek merit must be brave enough to keep an open mind and they must be honest in what they say. It has been said that there are many ways to go wrong and only one way to go right. So to be honest must be the right path because dishonesty has many roads and honest has but one. I will say no more on this subject of "DEALING" with the green eyed monster. Others have arrived at this watering hole before us and are beckoning us to follow. Now you know who is to receive the most credit if it is due. But, first we must be successful in building ETHICS and then we must not fear to give credit where credit is due. Ross Perot has played a big part for sure, and deserves some credit. Let the chips fall where they may and hope enough people make it past that green eyed monster to change what needs to be changed. [17]
Luck forced me to discover what was offered by others. If you credit me with anything, credit me with luck and the will to do what the situation asked me to do, nothing more. I am a very average person who has done what any other person would do if faced with a real chance to help others. I have always tried to give credit where credit is due, and I would rather give it away then receive it. It is not time for giving credit yet. That day will hopefully come. When we have built something to be proud of for the next generation. [17]
We are talking about credit today because it can be a pitfall/problem. We must recognize problems, so that we can deal with them. We must be honest so that we can make it past the problems we do not see. There are two more places where credit may fall if we are successful. I hope it fall in the first one. Since we are talking about credit it is best to finish it up so we do not need to return to it again. [17]
I have promised that a monument should be built to honor the only people who can truly make ETHICS a reality. The people who will be honored will be the many who make it to the watering hole and beckon others to follow. I will save the names in chronological order for that monument. It should be built many years after the ETHICS Project proves it worth, so that it can reflect the grand thing they have done. Give me a nickname so I am not accused of trying to be immortal in proposing this credit Monument. I choose to be an unknown soldier who did nothing but my duty if we are successful. If I am not around to see this day, it is my wish that I am truly listed as unknown to the people of the future that look at this grand monument, so they will know an average person did his duty nothing more, by taking personal pride in doing the right thing without the need for recognition. Since others have not proposed the monument it is right that future generations see how many voices it took to change politics. [17]
Now the long awaited close and the last place credit may fall. The alternative people choose when faced with the opportunity to build the ETHICS Project is to do nothing. Then we must wait for a future generation to try a more reasoned approach to the problems of society. When future generations look back and see that the demise of the USA was caused by people following blindly (as happened to the Greek Democracy), they will see it much clearer--people following the self-appointed power brokers blindly. Perhaps then, our cry in 1995 for the ETHICS Project will be heard. Perhaps then, those of us who's names will have long been forgotten will receive a little credit for illuminating the water hole called merit. Perhaps then, a system similar to ETHICS will be built. I believe ETHICS will be built someday, but I do not know when. If it is latter and we play some small part, in helping others to see the merit which was pointed out in 399 BC, my argument that it is better to try and fail than to never try at all will ring true. [17]
God Bless America--her best days lay ahead. If her people have the will to try and give people searching for merit, with an open mind, the chance to have a real voice. The same can be said for your country Canada, Stuart my friend! [17]
I look forward to hearing your responses. I hope they are many over the years. The length of this document was hard for me to handle. I am happy that you wrote your part just like you did though. We covered a lot of ground that needed to be covered and have perhaps made it possible to leave area's untouched for a long time to come. Now we can concentrate on individual areas in shorter exchanges. Thank you once again my friend from Canada. [17]
The following is Stuart Burnsâ suggestions for clarifying and adding to the definition of the ETHICS project, which is currently on the table for discussion.
>Bob K:
(I have included your entire reply because I am c.c.âing the other 3 ETHICS
innovators). [18]
I have developed a great respect for your opinions and your problem solving abilities. After studying your summery of the ETHICS project I was very pleased that I could find nothing in your summary that I disagreed with. The methodological format you used to define how to approach the construction of ETHICS was more than I could have hoped for at this timely juncture in the project. The way you want to approach your model of a study group has the mark of success all over it. [18]
I can even accept your rather rough review of ETHICS not having anything to do with overcoming ignorance. I value an honest opinion very highly, for the reason I give in a short second introduction e-mail letter to the ethics@uwsa.com study group participants. I look forward to the day when we can explore this curious observation. It should be a great discussion if luck and fate grant us the opportunity. [18]
I am going to anticipate, I hope rightfully, your acceptance of an innovator position in the area of study group administrator and ETHICS discussion group consultant. I believe your work in the study group area will dove tail with some recommendation for the big picture. I would not want to over-extend you, so the latter position is without commitment on your part. If you see something in that area that you want to help with the offer is open. I am going to clip what I would like to offer to the people as your reason for joining the project. Let me know if you want in and if you like what I want to offer. [18]
>Stuart B:
There are, as you are no doubt aware by now, a number of points where we differ dramatically on some issues, and where I take exception to some of the claims you have made for this project. But, I will agree with you that these differences should not constrain the progress of the ETH Project. [18]
As a communications vehicle, as a political voice amplifier, as a political power leveraging tool, the ETH project can be marketed to people of *all* political philosophies: liberals, conservatives, whatever. If you really want arguments on both sides of issues, and "unbiased" facts, then you are going to *need* people from all political philosophies. Otherwise, what you are going to end up with will be as narrow in focus and limited in capabilities as the structures you are trying to supplant. [18]
Get people on board with practical, immediate and personal self-interest benefits first - sell them the longer term dreams later. They will be much more willing to listen, believe, and contribute to the long term goals if you can entice them to get the thing working with short-term immediate payout personalized benefits. [18]
>Bob K:
I believe these 3 paragraph would make a very nice statement about what direction the ETHICS innovators need to travel to make ETHICS all that she can be. You are on target about a new edition of ETHICS also. Ross's name is a red flag to stubborn bulls. I have no doubt that he will be vindicated in the years that follows. He has them talking serious about balancing the US Budget. For today, UWSA needs to be the anchor that holds ETHICS in place. If UWSA fails to recognize the potential of bringing open discussions from diverse political groups, UWSA will cut the anchor lose of its own doing. [18]
>Stuart B (cont.):
Bob,
I have reviewed all the stuff you have sent me, and all of the communications that we have sent back and forth over the last month or so, and I have reread in detail the Lady Liberty edition of the ETHICS project.
From all of this material, I have deleted the unjustified opinions, the unproved facts, the claims for benefits for which there is no valid justification, and all of the fluff and public relations gloss that has nothing to do with the success of the project. (Well, at least as *I* classified the stuff). I did this because, while reading your last lengthy response to my comments, I began to realize that ETHICS has nothing to do with overcoming ignorance, little to do with Ethics or Philosophy, and you are not really that interested in exploring some of the philosophical difficulties I see with your published materials. There are, as you are no doubt aware by now, a number of points where we differ dramatically on some of these issues, and where I take exception to some of the claims you have made for this project. But I will agree with you that these differences should not constrain the progress of the ETH Project.
Therefore, I decided to attempt to understand the ETH Project when removed from our differences of opinion. The result is, I hope, a "Practical Man's Summary of the Electronic Town Hall Project." I am attaching it for your review and comments. I have also included as a working base, for your amusement, a *preliminary draft* of a possible Study Group that I would be interested in.
One of the consequences of this effort, was the reinforcement of my opinion that you are attempting to sell the ETH project as a panacea solution to too many problems. Your materials and responses are filled with claims for ETHICS that make it more than it is. I think this is the real reason why I started out so confused as to what it really was.
We have discussed a number of issues where I do not believe that you are going to achieve the results you are promising, and do not accept the assumptions that are the basis of your claims. But, I don't think those grandiose results you are projecting are really necessary to the successful marketing of the ETH project. I also believe you are unnecessarily constraining your potential audience. As long as you link the ETH project so tightly to the "conservative" political structures, you will be shutting out the rest of the populace. After all, there is a large proportion of your potential audience that are convinced that Mr. Perot is a nut-case, and will refuse to even glance at any idea that might be associated with him in any way. Why wave red-flags in the face of stubborn bulls? As a communications vehicle, as a political voice amplifier, as a political power leveraging tool, the ETH project can be marketed to people of *all* political philosophies: liberals, conservatives, whatever. If you really want arguments on both sides of issues, and "unbiased" facts, then you are going to *need* people from all political philosophies. Otherwise, what you are going to end up with will be as narrow in focus and limited in capabilities as the structures you are trying to supplant.
I would therefore strongly urge you to re-edit your Project Definition statement (the Lady Liberty Edition) to remove the fluff and PR. Limit it to what it *will* do, and leave for later discussions, what you would *like* it to do. Much of what you hope for ETHICS is grand sounding. But the lack of means, the large gap from here to success, will deflect that large proportion of your potential audience that is already too apathetic.
Get people on board with practical, immediate and personal self-interest benefits first - sell them the longer term dreams later. They will be much more willing to listen, believe, and contribute to the long term goals if you can entice them to get the thing working with short-term immediate payout personalized benefits. [18]
(If my summary is at all close to the mark, you are welcome to make what use of it you will.) [18]
5.3.1 Electronic Town Hall Project - Project Definition Statement
To build an information exchange system that will encourage an increased participation by the public in all phases of the nation's political processes by making more easily available to the average citizen the arguments for and against, and any unbiased facts relevant to, whatever issues are deemed to be important.
A. Increased participation in the discussions if important issues by individuals not already associated with the political process.
B. A meaningful debate within and between discussion groups ("Study Groups") that can produce arguments on both sides of issues, and can identify unbiased facts relevant to those issues, so that others can determine if their concerns are valid.
C. A means (such as opinion polls) of finding out what people think about issues when they can review all of the arguments on both sides of the issues, and have available all the facts.
D. More individuals with better informed opinions on the issues of importance.
E. More individuals interested in taking an active and influential part in the political process.
Just what subjects, topics, dimensions of measurement are IN and NOT-IN the scope of the ETH Project?
Violence, bigotry, and other anti-social activities are prohibited. (Any other constraints?)
A. The use of electronic communications and filing methods (such as the Internet) to facilitate the inter-personal communications necessary to conduct a meaningful debate on any issue without personal presence being required.
B. The use of "Study Groups" (as defined below), supported by the electronic infrastructure of the ETH Project, to develop the arguments on one or more sides of whatever issues are considered important to the participants.
C. The use of "Study Group" administrators to exercise some degree of control over the discussions involved so that those discussions remain on topic, remain rational rather than emotional, and a record can be kept and published of the arguments presented and facts identified.
D. The use of opinion polls (or other attitude determining tools) of the participants interested in particular issues, to determine and distribute the consensus of opinion at various stages of the development of the discussion of the issues involved.
5.3.1.6 Roles and Responsibilities
"Study Group" - A moderated forum for the discussion of a particular issue of interest. Responsible for developing rational arguments for and/or against one or more sides of the issue of interest, and for identifying any relevant facts.
"Head of Study Group" - Responsible for ensuring that the discussion that takes place in the Study Group remains on topic, and remains a rational discussion. Is also responsible for compiling the arguments presented, and facts identified for publication to other interested parties.
"Central Registering Organization" - Responsible for keeping track of the Study Groups and their Heads, mailing lists of interested parties to the discussions in progress, and publishing the arguments and facts identified by each Study Group and the public opinions determined by the Opinion Polling Management.
"Opinion Polling Management" - Responsible for periodically determining the prevailing public opinion of the arguments developed by, and the issues being addressed by each Study Group, and making the results available to other interested parties.
"Infrastructure Support" - Responsible for the construction and support of the electronic communications and filing technology that facilitates the functioning of the parts of the ETH Project.
A. ETH Project Mission Statement. (To be defined)
B. Criteria and procedures used to determine how to "officially" register Study Groups.
C. Methodology for when, how, and on what to canvas public opinion.
D. An Ethics statement used to determine what constitutes "Forbidden" activities.
Just what is the desired End Product of the ETH Project supposed to be? Is anything concrete, or is it just "better informed public"?
How is all of this going to happen?
Success Criteria & Progress Measurement
How do we determine whether the ETH Project is successful? How do we measure if the ETH Project is even going in the right direction?
5.3.2 ETH Project Study Group - Generic Terms of Reference
To foster and support a rational discussion on, and produce facts relevant to, a particular (related) set of issues that are deemed important to the participants in the Study Group in order to facilitate the formation and exchange of [judgments bases on facts] on those issues.
A. Arguments for and/or against one or more sides of the issues being addressed are documented and published for others to review and consider.
B. Facts relevant to the issues being addressed are agreed upon and published for use and consideration by others.
Just what subjects, topics, dimensions of measurement are IN and NOT-IN the scope of the average generic Study group?
Violence, bigotry, and other anti-social activities are prohibited. (Any other constraints?)
A. The use of electronic communications and filing methods (such as the Internet) to facilitate the inter-personal communications necessary to conduct a meaningful debate on any issue without personal presence being required.
B. The use of a "Study Group" administrator to exercise some degree of control over the discussions involved so that those discussions remain on topic, and remain rational, and a record can be kept and published of the arguments presented and facts identified.
C. The use of opinion polls (or other attitude determining tools) [by] the people interested in the particular issue of the Study Group. To determine and distribute the consensus of opinion and the facts involved, at various stages of the development of the arguments.
5.3.2.6 Roles and Responsibilities
"Head of Study Group" - Responsible for ensuring that the discussion that takes place in the Study Group remains on topic, and remains a rational discussion. Is also responsible for compiling the arguments presented, and facts identified for publication to other interested parties.
"Central Registering Organization" - Responsible for keeping a mailing list of parties interested in the discussion in progress, publishing the arguments and facts identified by the Study Group, and publishing the public opinions determined by the polls.
"Opinion Polling Management" - Responsible for periodically determining the prevailing public opinion of the arguments developed by, and the issues being addressed by the Study Group, and making the results available to other interested parties.
A. Study Group Mission Statement. (to be defined)
B. Detailed Study Group Terms of Reference.
C. A description of the Issues to be addressed by the Study Group.
A. Arguments for and/or against various positions on the Issue(s) of the Study Group.
B. Facts having relevance to the Issue(s) of the Study Group.
How is all of this going to happen?
Success Criteria & Progress Measurement
How do we determine whether the Study Group is successful? How do we measure if the Study Group is even going in the right direction, and not just wasting time?
5.3.3 ETH Project Study Group Head - Responsibility Statement
To monitor and [administer] a discussion on a particular (related) set of issues that are deemed important to the participants in the Study Group, in order to facilitate the formation and exchange of [facts] on those issues.
A. Publish the Study Group "Terms of Reference".
B. Develop a Study Group "Mission Statement" (remains to be defined).
C. Maintain a record of all communications taking place on the issue(s) involved.
D. Construct a running summary of the arguments presented on all sides of the issue(s) involved.
E. Construct a running summary of any relevant facts that have been agreed to, or are under debate.
5.3.4 ETH Project Study Group - Terms of Reference (Title = "Philosophical Foundations")
To foster and support a [rational] discussion on, and produce unbiased facts about, the "[appropriate]" philosophical foundations that should underlie and justify government policy in order to facilitate the formation and exchange of [facts] on those issues.
A. A definition of what constitutes "[appropriate]" in this context is developed and published.
B. Arguments are developed and published on what should constitute the "[appropriate]" philosophical foundations that should underlie and justify government policy.
C. Facts that are relevant to the arguments being presented are agreed to and published..
---IS---
A discussion of what should constitute "proper" in this context.
A discussion of what should be the "proper" philosophical principles that should form the foundation and justification of public policy. The generation of particular recommendations for public policy.
An exploration of the philosophical ramifications of particular public policy issues raised during the course of discussions.
---IS-NOT---
An exploration of any aspect of Theology.
An exploration of any subsets of Philosophy that do not have some meaningful bearing on the foundations and justification of public policy.
5.3.4.4 Assumptions & Constraints
A. The advocacy of violence, bigotry, or other forms of "anti-social" activities are prohibited, unless it can be argued that such promotion is justified by the "proper" philosophical principles proposed or so far established.
B. It is assumed as an initial starting position ("Basic Axiom #1") that there is a Reality that we can perceive "through a glass darkly" with our senses. "Through a glass darkly" because it is acceptable within the scope of this assumption that what we perceive about this Reality may be limited and/or distorted in some fashion.
C. It is further assumed ("Basic Axiom #2") that this Reality is something that is more or less "constant" and "consistent." By "more or less constant" I mean that if I repeat an experiment (exactly) I will get the same answer. In other words, if I repeat an experiment and appear to get different answers, I can assume as a starting point that it is my experimental conditions that have changed, and not Reality. By "more or less consistent" I mean that I will not get conflicting answers to different experiments. In other words, if two experiments provide apparently inconsistent answers, I can assume as a starting point that it is my understanding of my data that is at fault, and that Reality is not in fact inconsistent.
(to be determined).
5.3.4.6 Roles and Responsibilities
"Head of Study Group" - Responsible for ensuring that the discussion that takes place in the Study Group remains on topic, and remains a rational discussion. Is also responsible for compiling the arguments presented, and facts identified for publication to other interested parties.
"Study Group Participants" - Responsible for presenting rational arguments, and not emotional posturing or comic asides, for and/or against any of the issues, positions, or arguments developed by other participants; for keeping the Study Group Head advised of the progress of the discussion; and for assisting the Study Group Head in the compilation of a running summary of the arguments in progress by providing input to, and corrections of that running summary.
A. A description of the Philosophical Questions to be explored by the Study Group.
B. An on-going mailing-list of participants.
C. Some form of central repository for the maintenance of the documentation produced by the Study Group (exact nature to be determined - assistance from the ETH Project infrastructure support group expected).
A. Arguments for and/or against various positions on the Philosophical Questions to be explored by the Study Group.
B. Agreed upon facts having relevance to the Issue(s) being explored by the Study Group.
C. A "Statement of Basic Philosophical Principles" that the consensus of opinion indicates should form the "proper" foundation and justification for Public Policy.
(to be determined).
5.3.4.10 Progress Measurements & Success Criteria
(to be determined).
6.0 News and evolution of the ETHICS movement
The purpose of this section is to: (a) acknowledge those who have contributed to the ETHICS movement, either by directly supporting the cause, and/or contributing discussion that went into the production of this book; (b) give the reader information about how to contact us for more information, notify us of your support, join the discussion, etc; and (c) to provide several of the weekly progress report summaries that have been written by Bob Kuniegel.
6.1 Current Participation in the ETHICS movement
6.1.1 ETHICS Founder and Principal Author
Robert J. Kuniegel (Bob)
RR3 BOX 3272
Moscow, Pennsylvania 18444
6.1.2 ETHICS Project Innovators and Administrators (4)
1. Robert B. Moneymaker (Bob)
2. Bill Selmeier
3. Robert B. Reinhardt (Bob)
4. Stuart Burns
6.1.3 WELCOME ABOARD NAMES for the "ETHICS Information Age Monument" (21)
This is a complete list of all [21] currently active "voices" in the ETHICS movement (verified by the person having affirmed by clearly indicating positive support of the project--since May 14, 1995). In the order in which notification of support was received:
1. Bob Moneymaker
2. John Roland
3. Ralph Layman
4. Dudley Wilson
5. Robert B. Reinhardt
6. Oscar
7. Barbara
8. Ryan Meeks
9. Damien Newton
10. Dan McCandless
11. Jerry Lobdill
12. Dot Bibee
13. Glenn Stangel
14. Bill Selmeier
15. Ann Mcmillan
17. Tony Hernandez
18. Stuart Burns
19. Kavin Loughnane
20. Sharen
21. John Humphrey
6.1.4 Participants In The Prototype Study Group - Money & Economics (18)
We also want to acknowledge and thank the following people for their participation in the first prototype ETHICS study group on the subject of "money and economics," which is moderated by Bob Moneymaker. In addition to the topic itself, an additional purpose of this prototype study group is to begin to identify the dynamics and lessons learned that can go into developing formal ETHICS study group procedures in the future.
1. Jerry Lobdill
2. Dave Hayes
3. Wanda Chauncy
4. Bob Kuniegel
5. John De Lasaux
6. mettym
7. Patuwsa
8. Bill Selmeier
9. Fred Hoole
10. Jon S. Kee
11. Jim Lear
12. Stuart A. Burns
13. OscarK5268
14. Quentin Lewis
15. Sally Cuffaro
16. Robert Becklund
17. homestay
6.1.5 Additional Acknowledgements (4)
The following additional people are acknowledged and thanked for their participation in the discussion of the ETHICS concepts, contributing to the production of this book:
1. Dave Wiesner
2. Greg Bailey
3. Sandra Mendoza
4. TD@oilnet.com
6.2 Who and How To Contact For More Information
US Postal Mail: Robert J. Kuniegel
RR3 BOX 3272
Moscow, Pennsylvania 18444
Send e-mail to ETHICS founder, Bob Kuniegel:
"kuniegelr1@lion.uofs.edu"
Internet World Wide Web (WWW) Site: http://access.digex.net/~breinhar/ethics.html
The most recent version of this document should always be available at the ETHICS WWW Home Page, as well as other pertinent information.
Or send e-mail to ETHICS WWW administrator, Bob Reinhardt:
"breinhar@access.digex.net"
Internet Project EMAIL List: ethics@uwsa.com
To subscribe to the ETHICS PROJECT e-mail reflector send a message --
To: majordomo@uwsa.com
With No Subject
Include one line of text that says "subscribe ethics"
Or send e-mail to ETHICS e-mail list administrator, Bill Selmeier:
"telcon@shell.portal.com"
Internet Study Group EMAIL List: money-ethics@uwsa.com
To subscribe to the MONEY-ETHICS e-mail reflector send a message --
To: majordomo@uwsa.com
With No Subject
Include one line of text that says "subscribe money-ethics"
Or send e-mail to study group administrator, Bob Moneymaker:
"r.moneymaker@genie.geis.com"
We have made progress in some key technical areas with innovators taking initiative to work on something they noticed needs attention. Bill Selmeier started setting up a special e-mail address for ETHICS and special e-mail addresses for various study groups. The first study group is forming around money matters, Bob Moneymaker took initiative to start the group and is the administrator. "money.ethics@uwsa.com" will get you in when it is up and running. This pilot project study group is starting to lay the ground work for some of the procedures which will be written. Robert Reinhardt saw a need to start compiling some of the letters which I reply to. The letters are useful in explaining away misconceptions about the project and they help define some of the terms as they apply to the ETHICS Project. Robert is going to do some work on indexing the topics for easy access. [6]
I have noticed people doing some pitching to others to try and get them to take a look at the "LADY LIBERTY EDITION of ETHICS". This is not easy work, I know through experience. I worked well over a year to get a handful of people to give opinions about ETHICS after they took the time to read it. Until we gain recognition it is hard to get people to take a look. Some people will not slow down long enough to read it until they hear it from a news commentator. [6]
This is what I have learned in pitching ETHICS and UWSA (before I stopped pitching UWSA because, the peoples voice would not respond to questions). "If you try and fail it can be progress" because, some people need to hear about something many times before it catches their interest. It also helps when people have different people make a pitch to the same person. So try and not let a door closing be all negative, it is a long hard road to gain recognition. [6]
I once had a talk show host who does not talk politics on his show, which broadcast on 300 stations cost to cost, say he joined UWSA and the $15 was well worth the money. This took 4 months to get his attention after he made a rare political comment on New Years Eve. He stated that "he was not impressed with any of the 92 candidates." I will skip the details but, coming at him from different angles over a period of time got him to slow down and take a look at UWSA. Getting him to endorse UWSA brought the organization a lot of new people. The moral of the story is a door slamming in your face does not always mean you have accomplished nothing. Glad to have other people pitching ETHICS, it helps!! It is real progress!! [6]
Even though our "new people" count is not spectacular our voice is louder this week. "It only takes one new person to find the person who is going to bring a 1000 new voices aboard." That is one of the slogans I used working the phone banks at state head quarters during the 92 election. The lady which got me to slow down in mid 92 said "The only people which are not voting for Ross Perot are the ones which did not take the time to hear what he is saying." The same is true with the ETHICS MOVEMENT. [6]
I have received a reply from Stuart Burns. It is too long to post and be fair to the people on the [e-mail] reflector. It seems that Bill was several steps ahead when he saw the need for the ETHICS e-mail group. It will be a good place to deal with business. It will take me some time to get at Stuart's letter in its complete form, even though most of it will be short answers. I am working on a short response for the reflector which gives him credit for his efforts, and his support. I believe he is honest when he says the concerns he is raising are to offer a helping hand. I am toying with the possibility of [asking] him to head a study group as a Canadian Goodwill Ambassador. After reading his response I believe he may have something of real value to offer. I also have no idea if he would be interested but he seems like he may. [6]
Any feedback on this Ambassador topic pro or con would be greatly appreciated. I can forward his response to anyone interested (there is no need to read Stuartâs response to offer Goodwill Ambassador input). No one is obligated in any way to believe they need to take a look into the subject. The thing about the ETHICS project is that everyone gets to work on the things which interests them the most and I have no need to rob time away from your projects. The offer for input is made to give people that may have the time and interest in this subject, a chance to give some input. [6]
I am very happy to say that our voice is louder this week. Plus, I had several new requests for LADY LIBERTY and have been active laying out 6 stages of construction so that this enormous project will move ahead in an orderly fashion. There are already many questions about how exactly the study groups will do what it is they are going to do. When we have 997 more innovators, "WE" will answer those questions exactly. This is not a job of one person or a small group of people as the LADY LIBERTY EDITION OF ETHICS states. [7]
The HEADLINE for the May 95 UWSA National NEWSLETTER stated "Pass A REAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA." As luck would have it "A REAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA" just happens to be the goal statement upon which ETHICS is built. It is included in this report, and it gives the innovators a picture of what to build. But it does not tell them how to build it. I am going to give some of the reasons why it is set up in this manner in this report. [7]
The innovators have a free hand in building how they want ETHICS to accomplish its set goal, which is laid out in "A REAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA." As long as they keep the highest of ethical standards in their work as innovators, they will direct their own pilot project. Anyone's pilot project may turn out to become what "exactly" will govern the ETHICS study groups, when we enter the implementation stage. There is a very good reason why ETHICS is laid out to be built in this manner. [7]
ETHICS is going to come from the people. We are the ones being stepped on and we will know what we do not want. Not everyone will be brave enough to pick up the gauntlet to try and climb a mountain which has never been climbed before. But we only need 1000 people out of a nation to have ETHICS born from the people. If you are lurking out there and you know what you do not want ETHICS to become, "YOU" are one of the most valuable people in the country today. Bring your experience to the movement. ETHICS will become what you want it to become. The idea for ETHICS was given to me, it is not my invention. I am only a facilitator and an innovator. An innovator just like the other 1000 people I am asking to take an active role. I give it free and clear to AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL. Be BRAVE America--step in the ring. You know what to do. [7]
I pledge to build an information system that produces unbiased facts about whatever issues are important to Americans. We the people will build such a system because, we long for a chance to examine all arguments for and against issues that affect our lives and our country. We long for the chance to take part in a meaningful debate system that produces arguments on both sides of issues so that others can determine if our concerns are valid. We will make the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL INITIATIVE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM a new and different kind of educational force that finds out what people think about issues, when they have all the facts. Ross Perot has given us this opportunity. We accept this challenge to build a system that finds out what is good for America while maintaining the highest of ethical standards. [8]
What is the real value of creating an information system like the one described in a Real Contract For America? I believe the value is so great that it can not be measured. If a person could answer that question definitively they would need to also answer the question of: What is the value of a higher level of human understanding? These are long term goals that most people can agree on as being worth while, even though they can not be measured. [8]
The present generation has neglected a great gift that has given us American's a chance to be all that our imaginations had the power to imagine. Good habits and bad habits are hard to change. So fellow Americans, look at the challenge ahead for what it is. It is very difficult because, we have a Nation where the vast majority of its inhabitants have a bad habit of neglecting and taking for granted America the Beautiful. Other people who are interested in meeting their responsibilities have a vast array of ways they believe to be right to restore America The Beautiful back to her Grandeur. But nothing will be effective unless we get a large majority of these people to agree on a plan. [8]
Here is the bottom line. When you are faced with an immediate danger, like a multi-trillion dollar mounting debt, it is normal for people to think short term. Because there is an immediate need. As long as people think short term you will never get them to agree on a plan until that short term plan requires that everyone does the same thing. Like run for their lives. So I suggest we are fighting a battle which is going to be disorganized until we have great sorrow at our feet. [8]
The only real alternative is to think long term where we can get people to agree. This is a labor intensive job that can move at a snails pace until we gain recognition. This last week has proven this fact. There were no new "WELCOME ABOARD'S." I am happy to take new people in favor of a long term plan whenever they want to join the MOVEMENT. [8]
There are a vast array of people speeding along trying get their plan to solve America's problems moving and they can not seem to find a way to get enough people to help them. At some point in time they will slow down a little and then they will have an opportunity to throw out their misconceptions about ETHICS being any number of things it is not. These misconceptions are what happens when a person is moving too fast to focus on something moving slower. As these new people come aboard one at a time, with their new voice of approval, ETHICS will pick up speed in the form of recognition and the people moving fast will see ETHICS more clearly; and then we are going to change the way politics is conducted. [8]
I see ETHICS as a long term plan which can restore America the Beautiful to a even better state of grandeur. I have been looking for people who could explain to me why I may be in error for believing what I believe to be true. I give them every opportunity to change my mind. I have found no person that can dispute this long term plan called ETHICS and I have never shied away from answering all questions. Stuart Burnsâ tough questioning has proven him to be a friend of the ETHICS MOVEMENT. My responses to his latest tough questioning should be ready for the WWW this week. [8]
This has been a real active week in terms of The ETHICS Project taking shape under construction. We now have our ETHICS@UWSA.COM reflector set up and our first study group MONEY-ETHICS@UWSA.COM is set up, thanks to the efforts of Bill Selmeier. Bob Reinhardt has made headway on the ETHICS WWW page. Bob Moneymaker is working with his study group and has found time to do a review of the latest STUART BURNS ESSAY. It took me 3 weeks and about 80 hours to complete. Therefore, to date there are no questions about the ETHICS Project that have not been answered. The harder the questions the brighter ETHICS shines. I will include short clips from our 3 innovators about the weeks construction work at the end of this report. Special thanks to all involved. This week we have completed almost all the necessary preparation work. Well done BRAVO!! [10]
Our sleeping giant is still in a deep sleep. This Giant has no idea that it holds the power that it does. It is resting while the insects are draining its life's blood. The national debt is rising and the Giant is stirring a little now and then from the pain. But the Sleeping Giant dreams about ways to enlist new insects to chase the bad ones away. If the sleeping giant could only awaken and realize it is sleepiness and inactivity that invited the parasites. If this awakening were to happen, the sleeping Giant could have many productive years ahead. [10]
We will wait to see what happens. Perhaps a bad dream will awaken the Giant. Perhaps it will realize to awaken it must collect its thoughts and focus all these dreams people are talking about into one plan of action. Perhaps we can add credibility to the things we talk about by showing that we have studied the issues in depth and are offering expert opinions. If we do not have time to do this in-depth study of issues, we will continue to have small groups of people with good ideas and not enough people to take notice to what they are talking about. [10]
We have no new voices who wish to join us this week in our effort to give a more reasoned approach to issues. They are not with our effort because, they do not know what we are trying to do and how we will accomplish our task. The Giant will awaken when it understands that to gain the respect of the American public we must go through extraordinary measures to prove we researched the issues we are talking about. Plus, the general public must know we went through extraordinary efforts to ensure that we have all the information on both sides to the issues. Then UWSA will be the peoples voice, which seeks and speaks about what has merit. ETHICS IS READY AND WAITING FOR YOUR SUPPORT UWSA. It will not happen without good people stepping up to the microphone and saying I want to know everything there is to know about an issue so that I can give an expert informed opinion. The ball is in your court. Help us change the way politics is killing our Country. [10]
The ETHICS and MONEY-ETHICS Email lists are up and running, as are the ETHICS and MONEY-ETHICS World Wide Web (WWW) Home Pages.
Our voice is louder this week after a 2 week lull. The slow pace to gain recognition reminds me of Ross trying to sell the EDS concept to IBM and others. No one was interested in the concept at first. It took a lot of hard work and many rejections from people who did not realize how EDS could benefit them. [19]
I continue to hear people looking for people to listen to what they believe is important, and I see them getting frustrated. Many of them are too busy to step back from the problem they feel is urgent, that they are dealing with. Many are too busy to look at different ways to improve their audience. They believe the facts they hold should be enough to get people's attention. [19]
This old method of pushing issues works for the rich and powerful because they have the means and contacts to run ad campaigns. But this method is tainted because the ad campaigns are too often just a power game that gathers people to follow by playing on people's fears and emotions. This method is not based on merit. If the people's voice is based on these rules than we are playing into the hands of the rich and powerful. We can not compete as long as we are perceived as voices without credentials. Because they, the powerful, will always have more money and better contacts to beat us at this game. If you want to change politics you must change the rules to give the people who seek merit credentials. This is what ETHICS does. [19]
The job of gaining recognition is large because:
1. People are familiar with playing the game as they always have.
2. We need people to realize a different approach is needed.
3. We need to get them to look at a different approach.
This is a very hard task to say the least. But, these were the same things facing the EDS concept, and Ross, when he saw something others did not. Our task is harder in a way because we need more people to see an abstract concept before we can proceed. But the pay off is larger and the participants are starting to realize something different needs to be used because, what they are using is not working. [19]
Our voice is louder this week. It is a very nice feeling to have people see the need for an information system which will make it possible to change the first basic rule of modern politics. Which is, silence the people in any manner that is effective. What is starting to become better understood is that the basic definition of silencing the people deals with stopping a collective voice of the people and is not much concerned with small groups of individuals whosâ political murmurs can be easily nullified. It seems we have freedom of speech for sure. But a collective political voice is reserved for the few who get to pick our politicians. Is it any wonder that we are heading toward a two class society? Unless we realize that we need to do our duty to search out what political policies have merit (merit for the many), we the middle class will continue to be squashed into policies skewed toward the upper class. [20]
Now, some people fail to realize we are the lion jumping through hoops for the ring masters. We are the most powerful but we are in a cage and are not using our power. That power being--the ability to wander through the jungle of bad policies and attack them with a collective voice. But we need an information system that has credibility to form a collective voice. The time to do it is now. We are entering the information age. Information is at our finger tips. It is our duty to empower the people to hunt in specialized packs called study groups. Step forward and let your voice be heard. There are about 130 people on the UWSA@SHELL.PORTAL.COM reflector, if we gain a majority of those voices to support building an information system, that will be a very strong statement that can be used to move the ETHICS Project to sure and faster implementation. [20]
Stuart Burns has joined the ETHICS MOVEMENT as an innovator. He has an interest in starting to develop procedures that will aid study groups in their quest to separate fact from fiction. Like the other innovatorâs he brings with him many years of experience and a keen interest in helping the ETHICS Project along in a particular area. Look for a post which outlines his study group and join in to give him a hand if that is where your interests are. We need "YOU" the "PEOPLE" (JOHN Q. and JANE B. PUBLIC) to make this happen. [20]
I am sick and tired of jumping through hoops. In times of great trouble average people must rise up and draw together to protect their common interests. If you do not react when the problem is defined (as it is clearly defined) and a logical solution is offered (as it is clearly offered), you will feel the crack of the whip when you start to realize the middle class will be working longer hours and receiving less real spending power for the things you want and need. [20]
This weekâs note of interest came out of a discussion that took place on the uwsa@shell.portal.com reflector and from a post made by Robert Reinhardt to the ethics@uwsa.com reflector. These conversations have led me to raise the following interesting questions that have never been officially documented: (1) If UWSA does not back the ETHICS Project or "another" information system "similar" to the ETHICS Project, is UWSA maintaining the highest ethical standards? Ross has stated that UWSA members need to maintain the highest of ethical standards. (2) If Ross's statement about maintaining the highest of ethical standards is not listed in the mission statement (and it is not), does that mean we are not to maintain the highest of ethical standards? The follow-up question could be a question that corruptible forces may want to use as justification for less than ethical actions. The goal of the "ETHICS Information System" is to provide information on both sides of an issue, so that the membership can choose for themselves where merit resides. This short weekly note will show why this is the highest of ethical standards. [21]
UWSA MISSION STATEMENT
"We the people of United We Stand America, recognizing that our republic was founded as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people unite to restore the integrity of our economic political systems.
We commit ourselves to organize to educate, to participate in the political process, and to hold our public servants accountable.
We shall rebuild our country, renew its economic, moral and social strength, and return the sovereignty of America to her people". (end) [21]
FUNK & WAGNALLS STANDARD DICTIONARY (1980) definition:
ethics: 1) The study and philosophy of human conduct, with emphasis on the determination of right and wrong. [21]
According to this definition, there is an action involved in being ethical and it is an action that involves more than just doing the right thing. "Determination" of right and wrong is different than just doing the right or wrong thing. If ethical behavior were just the action of doing something correct we could have a book that listed all the ethical behaviors. But there is no such book. Example: Is it ethical for a farmer to plant his crop at the right time? It may be correct, it may be "right" but, it is not something we would talk about as being ethical. But if that farmer is trying to figure out if it is right or wrong not to plant a crop that the local produce people depend on and are counting on for their livelihood, then the farmer would be trying to do what is ethical. [21]
Some people read the definition of ethics as though there is an absolute right or wrong and that knowledge of right and wrong is ethical in and of itself. If a person were to hold the above opinion then they could jump to the conclusion that a teacher can pick today's ethical action out of a book and say, "Here, class is the specific action you need to take because the experts have told us it is always ethical to do it this way." The teacher could also say "No need to think about it. Don't bother evaluating or trying to determine right or wrong. Take my word it, it's in the book. It says right here you are to do this." There would be no thinking involved, only following the leader. This does not fit the definition of ethical behavior, specifically the word "determination" of right and wrong. The definition does not indicate that a person should receive ethical behavior from someone. It says to determine what is right or wrong. [21]
To determine what is right or wrong a person needs an open mind. An open mind determines what is right or wrong by evaluating information. If a person is following someone's instruction blindly, they have a closed mind. There is no evaluating taking place. If an organization is asking people to follow its expert opinion without providing all the possible information needed to form an expert opinion, then that organization is failing to have its members maintain the highest of ethical standards, which is to evaluate and/or determine what is right or wrong. This type of evaluation and determination is a personal responsibility that is required to maintain the highest of ethical standards. It is not something to be accepted on someone else's word. [21]
If UWSA does not go out of its way to give its members all the information on both sides of an issue so that they can decide an issue on their own, is the organization maintaining the highest of ethical standards? (end of weekly note) [21]
If UWSA does not go out of its way to give its members all the information on both sides of an issue, so that the members can decide an issue on their own, is the organization maintaining the highest of ethical standards? [23]
The above question from last weeks weekly report received higher than normal responses. Not one person has argued that the above question does not depict the highest of ethical standards. If we build an information system that does the above, we are not only maintaining the highest of ethical standards, we are also defining how we are going to give the people a voice. We are also solving the communication problems, which are pulling UWSA apart. Plus, we are educating the public about where they may discover short term and long term benefits. Plus, we would deny the most powerful their favorite game of disinformation (disinformation being seriously challenged will bring major changes in politics). [23]
There are a lot of UWSA's founding members disillusioned about how the communications problems in UWSA had a small group of people trying to tell the membership how to pursue, what the small group believed to hold merit. There are stories of people who are in power positions doing things to maintain their power with disregard to proper ethical actions. Does this sound a little like the government bureaucrats we are trying to stop from doing the same thing? We have people in government and in UWSA believing they are doing what is right. [23]
Step back and reflect on what is happening. On the uwsa@shell.portal.com [e-mail] reflector, their are numerous small groups of people who believe they have "the answer." They are sure because, they have achieved some level of success. ... A lot of people are saying the same thing Dallas has said. "I have the answer--you should do it this way." I do not believe the human animal is going to be attracted to a concise area of interest unless their is a immediate payoff, and if there is an immediate payoff it will be the threat of stopping a war or another scam-like bait to play us like pawns. To work for the benefit of future generations is not something which can be realized in immediate payoffs. To work for our immediate benefit will not attract a large group, if immediate is not in terms of this weeks pay check. So lets stop kidding ourselves that any one course of action on a specific [issue] can be affective to unite a large group of people. [23]
Therefore, if small groups specializing in specific areas have proven to be effective, and it is not possible to have all people do the same thing, why continue to try to build an organization based on a theory of action of one small group? Think--coalition of many study groups. We need to set our sight down stream. What action can a vast number of small study groups do that can share a common goal? Is their something that a vast number of small study groups could use in common to help them achieve their objectives? (improve government). [23]
We are entering the Information Age. Dependable information is something every small group needs to make good decisions to attract supporters to their cause and/or accomplishments. It is time UWSA members--to start building the Electronic Town Hall. It is something we can Unite around in its building, and it is something all groups who seek what is best for government can use in their individual efforts. Why are we hesitating to do it? Do not look to Dallas to do it? Is there another plan which holds the potential and solves the problems? Wait too long and you will lose the best and only chance to take control from the "big boys." We have a lot of people who would be energized to see UWSA moving forward on a real project to make major changes. [23]
I am happy to report that Bob Moneymakersâ study group on "money" is becoming quite active. If you ever heard the trick of following the money trail you will know that Bob has found an area of study where we will find the culprits to bad government policy. [23]
Bravo! Bob Reinhardt for your work on the book that chronicles the ETHICS PROJECT. We are in the process of doing some final editing. I have included a brief introduction from the book that tells a little about what Bob has been doing. The way he has laid out the book will make it easy for people to find answers to the many questions people raise. Bravo! Bob we are deeply indebted for the tremendous project you have undertaken. [see the Introduction to this document to see what Bob K. was referring to]. [24]
I have worked the trenches this past week and this is another note of interest for the people who have not lost sight of the vision that UWSA will fulfill if we persevere. [24]
There are a number of people who I believed were offering constructive criticism about UWSA who I "may" have misread. I am getting closer to distilling which camp they are in. It is my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt. The flip side to constructive criticism is destructive criticism. This type of criticism is based on malice with disregard for the innocent people who will suffer if they achieve their goal of vengeance. It does not matter if the actor of ill will has a reason for their anger. If there were such a thing, a rightful destructive action that injures innocent people, we would be living in a world were Liberty and Love would take a back seat to vengeance. [24]
There are millions of hours that went into building our organization. Our goal, whether or not it is achieved, is to give a real voice to the people who pursue merit. Any person who attempts to destroy the labor of so many people who put their heart and souls into UWSA, must be considered to be a foolish destructive person, no matter what they feel is right justification. [24]
If UWSA is going to make use of all its assets we must identify which elements are constructive and which are destructive. People who are constructive criticizers are valuable people who too often have their talent wasted because, they are lumped in with the destructive elements. The best way I found to distinguish the bad from the good elements is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt first. Then I look to see who seeks their respective action. [24]
Actions speak louder than words. Many of the destructive elements believe they are trying to do benefit. Therefore, you must look beyond their words given with honest feelings. Their true colors shine through when they are presented with a plan that solves the problems they are crying about. They will choose to reject the plan and continue their destructive assault. People hear what they want to hear. Some people refuse to help when a small effort on their part would produce a large benefit to their old ally. These people want destruction. But, they are fooling themselves into thinking otherwise. Some people may believe they have a plan to pick up the pieces of a burned out shell of UWSA after they wish it destroyed, by doing nothing to help their old allies. They should read T. S. Elliot's "Punishment of Pride," then consider the sorrow they are hoping upon their old allies. [24]
It is good to know who our friends and enemies are. You can never have too many friends. Therefore, do not let the destructive elements cost you a friend by causing you to fail to listen to criticism of all types. Careful evaluation is a strong tool we need to use more. Take the time to figure out who is destructive and who is seeking to help. Pity the unfortunate souls that are snake bitten. Be kind, and hope the poison that was injected into them by societies mostly accidental nature, weakens with a kind word and a request for assistance in reaching our goals. This type of kind action is how the meek can inherit the earth. Resist being drawn into violent personal attacks. Then make use of the valuable friends your efforts distilled from what was once just a mire of criticism. [24]
This method gives you the opportunity to start solving problems with valuable new friends that you may have otherwise discarded. Will we ever have a better chance than we have today to make the ELECTRONIC TOWN HALL the voice of the people seeking merit? The people on the sidelines need to seriously consider this question. [24]
This has been a strange week. I guess typical of the "dog days of summer." There are many things to do but, so many people are waiting for a more opportune time to get at them. We have made progress on the ETHICS Book this week. So, when I talk about the dog days of summer it is in reference to the people who are busy waiting for someone else to accomplish fixing what they only curse about that needs to be fixed. [25]
It has been a strange week. We once had an organization that had over 2 million members and now it is a lot smaller. It has been said our strength is in our numbers and we have lost considerable strength. The reasons are many no doubt, for the decline. But, the promise that brought us together in the first place was "ONE." We were to give the people who searched for merit a real voice. This was the promise. "Is it good for our country?" was the path we were to set out on. Over 2 million people joined the search. Many gave up for many reasons, no doubt. The search is still not complete. The people who have left the search have lost confidence in the ability to reach success, no doubt. If they hear the few which are still searching have found success and need help, the people who have left the search will return with friends. So, why do we sit and wait in the dog days of summer and do nothing to give the people a real voice who what to search for what is good for our country? [25]
If there were no plan to give the people a real voice, like the ETHICS Project, there may be a reason to stay disorganized with everyone chasing off in different directions. A search party needs a plan, PEOPLE! A plan that will make the search party act as a unit even though it chases off in different directions. [25]
Communication, communication, communication, is the one essential thing that links any search party. Some of the lone groups who believe they are hot on the trail of merit, do not realize that if they find it it is of little value, if they do not have an information system the people trust enough to listen to what they have accomplished. It is time for the Electronic Town Hall. Where are the voices in support of a system of communications that gives the people a real voice who search for merit? There are no new voices this week. It was a very strange week. [25]
There are more people who say "we support your effort" in private than there are honest people that say, in an open fashion, that "it is time for the ETHICS Project." There is a world of difference between these 2 groups of people. There is not any difference in the amount of action they take. They both say basically the same thing, but the one group (who number 20) have said publicly, it is time for the ETHICS Project. Why are the rest of the people hiding their voice of support? Do they not trust their mental ability to distinguish a good plan from a bad plan? Why do they fear voicing a positive public opinion? What are the reasons for your public silence? You have me baffled UWSA with your silence, People! I can not understand why a simple voice of support is so hard to give. [25]
The good news of the week is: That the ground work preparation has been completed. When the people decide that it is time to build an information system that the people can trust to give all the information on an issue, there is a plan waiting. Plus, it is a system which will not do news blackouts (news blackouts are the major way the present media controls what the people talk about). Judging by peoples preoccupation with closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out, I may not live long enough to see the ETHICS Project become a reality. The work that has been completed will stand in wait for the sleeping giant to see the need, and my spirit will be waiting till hell freezes over if need be because, no one can say the system does not have merit. [25]
People must deal with the problem of how the barn door got open in the first place, so that it does not happen again; if there is any common sense in the world. The ETH will not happen until the people decide they need it. Common sense should tell them it is time, since too many children have had their economic future stolen. [25]
It is harder for a group of people to see common sense though. So, it is an individual's triumph to stand on the side of what has merit even though the group chooses to lead us with out common sense. The task of building the ETH is only impossible if individuals fail to stand firm for what is right by saying that the many will never be persuaded. The first battle must be won. That battle is individuals not worrying about the outcome of the ultimate goal. Individuals only need to keep their own course in line with what has merit. The battle will be won one person at a time, if not, all things are impossible in common sense politics. Personal pride is all we need. Captain your own ship. If the group chooses to be reckless we can only show the right course, no more. [25]
I can not speak for the rest of the people who are working on the ETHICS Project, but judging by the amount of dedication they have toward giving the people a real voice to solve their own problems I SUSPECT I will never be a single voice in the distance again. It is time for the ETH. We are waiting for your public voice of support or at least your reasons why you have reservation about the plan. [25]
A special thanks to the people who have not wavered in their commitment to give the people a real voice, when others fear to step forward to be counted. [25]
This section lists the source documents quoted and excerpt from throughout this book. The original authors retain all their rights to their own work.
[1] Internet Email: Subject: ETHICS 6 STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION; 31 May 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[2] Internet Email: Subject: MOTHER'S DAY GIFT LADY LIBERTY; 14 May 1995, Bob Kuniegel; (supersedes reference [3]).
[3] Internet Email: Subject: ETHICS Proposal, With Supporting Comments; Oct 1994, Bob Kuniegel
[4] Internet Email: Socratic Reasoning roots to the ETHICS idea, 17 June 1995, Bob Moneymaker with Bob Kuniegel
[5] Internet Email: Discussion: TD@oilnet.com with Bob Kuniegel, April, 1, 1995
[6] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 29 May 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[7] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 05 June 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[8] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 12 June 1995, Bob Kuniegel,
[9] Internet Email: Subject: ETHICS Story, 13 June 1995, Tony Hernandez with Bob Kuniegel
[10] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 18 June 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[11] Internet Email: Discussion: Bob Reinhardt with Bob Kuniegel, 20 May 1995
[12] Internet Email: Discussion: Glenn Stangel with Bob Kuniegel, 24 May 1995
[13] Internet Email: Discussion: Greg Bailey with Bob Kuniegel, 30 May 1995
[14] Internet Email: Discussion: Ann P. McMillan with Bob Kuniegel, 02 June 1995
[15] Internet Email: Discussion: Sandra Mendoza with Bob Kuniegel, 12 June 1995
[16] Internet Email: Discussion: Stuart Burns Critique with Bob Kuniegel, 25 May 1995
[17] Internet Email: Discussion: Stuart Burns Essay with Bob Kuniegel, 16 June 1995; and Edited Topic Summary by Dave Wiesner, 25 June 1995
[18] Internet Email: Discussion: Stuart Burns ETH Project with Bob Kuniegel, 23 June 1995
[19] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 26 June 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[20] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 03 July 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[21] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 11 July 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[22] Internet Email: Discussion: John Rowland with Bob Kuniegel, 27 June 1995
[23] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 16 July 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[24] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 24 July 1995, Bob Kuniegel
[25] Internet Email: Subject: REPORT, 30 July 1995, Bob Kuniegel
