Make corporate and national hierarchies more fluid and shallower.

[CreamCat]

This is a new experimental blueprint for new societies.

• Making hierarchies shallower
  • Splitting large countries into city states
    • Splitting military can create consequences. Explore ways for small military powers to defend against larger military powers
  • Splitting large companies into small companies
  • Shallower hierarchies create more authorities and more competition and create room for more experiments and more innovations.
  • Competition is an antidote to devilry.
• Making hierarchies fluid
  • Make corporate and national boundaries less rigid and more vague.
  • Make it easy for outsiders to contribute.
    • Wikipedia comes to my mind when I imagine easy contribution by outsiders.
  • Corporation
    • Be quick to promote contributors and demote idle members.
    • Instead of hiring employees via interviews, allow outsiders to contribute to corporate work. Outsiders will have incentives to contribute because they want to fix issues in products they use and they want opportunities to demonstrate their skills to employers. Be quick to promote contributors to employees and employees to managers and executives. Be quick to demote executives, managers, and employees if they are idle for a while. Reserve tenures for a few.
  • Government
    • To make national boundary more vague, don't expel illegal migrants. Be quick to give more essential privileges to migrants who contribute. Essential privileges include the right to create bank accounts and small businesses. Be quick to take away non-essential privileges if they commit crimes or detract from the regional society. The right to vote is non-essential. Let people vote with their feet and their wallets. Abolish binary citizenship status. Turn binary citizenship status into gradual privileges which people gain and lose quickly over time. Each person would develop different privileges in different cities.
    • Abolish defined election cycles. Create a voting website where people vote on their schedule. Each person can choose one's own own election cycle. I could choose to vote every 6 months. Another person could choose to vote every year or every two years. This is called asynchronous voting. Let people vote for regional candidates and individual policies. It is a mixture of direct and representational democracy.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

Be careful with such armchair philosophy.

All such proposals could impact millions of lives in negative ways.

Before you get stuck on some pet idea, go create something that works in the real world.

It's too easy to sit behind a computer and think you have the answers to the world's problems.

This is one of the dangers of this work.

[SerpaeTetra]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Be careful with such armchair philosophy.

All such proposals could impact millions of lives in negative ways.

Before you get stuck on some pet idea, go create something that works in the real world.

It's too easy to sit behind a computer and think you have the answers to the world's problems.

This is one of the dangers of this work.

Lol, nothing wrong with him mentioning a few ideas.  One of your videos is titiled "Over 100 specific policy proposals"

[CreamCat]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's too easy to sit behind a computer and think you have the answers to the world's problems.

I don't think it is the answer. But, it's a fun idea to bounce with.

Ideally, this kind of idea grows organically. I don't like my ideas to be fed forcefully from a small group of elites.

At this point, it's primarily an intellectual exercise for the mind. No serious intention to implement anything seriously. Even if I had serious intentions to implement them seriously, I wouldn't be able to implement them at any scale without massive personal development.

If I ever created a company, I might apply my own ideas to it and write a book about it after accumulating years of direct experiences.

Or, a game company could apply my idea to a new release of simcity. I like the idea of testing ideas in simulations. At the very least, it's fun ideas for simulation games.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

At this point, it's primarily an intellectual exercise for the mind. No serious intention to implement anything seriously.

That is the problem.

It's all too easy to sit around and come up with ideas, which lead to ideologies, which to suffering amd death of millions.

Go actually create a hierarchy that works in the real world so you have some inkling of how they work and what function they serve.

How can you improve a thing which you have no experience creating?

It's like a guy giving advice to an aerospace engineer about how to design a rocket, but he's never even designed a toy airplane. This is the mark of an amateur.

If you actually create a productive organization you will see how difficult all these things are and how all your lofty ideals fly out the window.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, SerpaeTetra said:

Lol, nothing wrong with him mentioning a few ideas.  One of your videos is titiled "Over 100 specific policy proposals"

Like I said, many dangers in this work.

Ideas are tricky things. Gotta be very careful with them.

It is important to keep oneself grounded in real life experience. Otherwise armchair philosophy runs amok.

If you think you have great ideas, go put them to the test by creating the things you're talking about. You will quickly discover how foolish your "great ideas" probably were.

Real life will poke holes in all your great ideas.

[CreamCat]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's all too easy to sit around and come up with ideas, which lead to ideologies, which to suffering amd death of millions.

In general, yes. In this specific case, I don't think I or others will become ideological about my ideas.

Rather, I expect 99% of people to ideologically reject my ideas, and most of 1% to shrug them off as amateurish ideas.

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How can you improve a thing which you have no experience creating?

It's like a guy giving advice to an aerospace engineer about how to design a rocket, but he's never even designed a toy airplane. This is the mark of an amateur.

If you actually create a productive organization you will see how difficult all these things are and how all your lofty ideals fly out the window.

You're right. I don't intend to become professional in governance. Governance is not for me in this lifetime. I'm just a frolicking amateur who likes to have fun with random cool ideas. Many people like to fantasize about cool ideas from time to time.

If I ever became serious about governance and made it my life purpose, I may think differently and approach it differently and more seriously.

The purpose of this thread was to practice thinking outside the box although I'm not sure if I properly got outside the box.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ideas are tricky things. Gotta be very careful with them.

There's dynamic balance. When you are just imagining in your mind, you can explore craziest ideas.

When you actually implement ideas, you got to prune bad ideas.

It's like writing a novel. When you explore ideas for novel, you come up with all sorts of weird ideas in brainstorm sessions.

When you actually write the novel, you have to cut out most ideas.

At some point, you got to stop exploring and start delivering the novel.

Exploration and delivery.

If you are too careful in exploration phase, you won't come up with much.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will quickly discover how foolish your "great ideas" probably were.

Real life will poke holes in all your great ideas.

I'm aware that 90% or more of my ideas or projects will go to trash bin. Being aware of this is good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law says

Quote

ninety percent of everything is crap

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat

[tenta]

Too optimistic, devils will fight tooth and nail for this to not happen, even if they have no arguments they will easily hide behind censoring others or ignorance

About the specific techniques of splitting military into smaller millitaries: there are better ways, like making it so that one person with a specific job doesn't also have needless power that serves nothing other than their extreme narcissism, for example moderation here is different than on other forums, where if you get banned, people will circle-jerk about how you were stupid or the mods will outright flex about being mods and just disagreeing with them on anything could get you banned or heavily insulted

10 hours ago, CreamCat said:

Make it easy for outsiders to contribute.

Wikipedia comes to my mind when I imagine easy contribution by outsiders.

That gets corrupted when perfectly valid or even factual edits are un-done by people who have zero idea what they're talking about, but will get to undo your edits or get you banned from editing (don't know how it is on wikipedia itself but other online wikias have this problem), or there will be a hierarchy where some pages are not editable unless you meet requirements

10 hours ago, CreamCat said:

don't expel illegal migrants. Be quick to give more essential privileges to migrants who contribute.

And make legal immigration easy, get rid of extremely archaic rules like having to subscribe to or pretend to subscribe to nationalistic ideas to be able to enter the US legally, zero pledge of allegiance required to enter the country either, and make requirements to be able to run for congress only living in the US for one year or so and being above the age of 18

[CreamCat]

17 minutes ago, tenta said:

That gets corrupted when perfectly valid or even factual edits are un-done by people who have zero idea what they're talking about

There are some wikipedia pages that have a lot of contention. But, wikipedia is far opener to outsiders than corporate secret projects. You can be banned from a company for your lifetime. You can be banned from open-source projects.

Still, open-source projects are far opener to outsiders than corporations.

An open-source project that promotes contributors as paid contributors can be a corporation.

GitLab is an open-source project with a company behind it. GitLab can technically hire contributors without having to resort to formal interviews.

Edited October 22, 2019 by CreamCat