Thread: Future and Transitional Governance

I've been educating myself on TVP for a while now. I'm looking for a place/community to discuss transitional governance, which is basically about getting us from here to a TVP-like state.

With another group, I discussed and devised a framework for a new governance system. I recently got into a fight with a group of moderators who have been secretly controlling the forum. They are no doubt doing the bidding of the 1%. I exposed them (most people knew already), and explained to the good friends there that if I got banned, I would seek a new community, never to return. I tried to convince the good people to do the same.

You can think of it as plug and play. It can work with a variety of economic systems, from brutal capitalism to resource-based. It's a modern form of representative democracy, but much different than you probably started imagining.

Is this a good place for me?

For those who don't know TVP, I presume it's this lot

VISION 1: Become The Person You Were Meant To Be.
VISION 2: Live the Life You Were Meant To Live.
VISION 3: Fell Extraordinary Every Day
VISION 4: Slow Down Aging Permanently.
VISION 5: Land The Job Of Your Dreams.
VISION 6: Build The Business Of Your Passions.
VISION 7: Experience The Love Of Your Life.
VISION 8: Have The Body You Always Envied.
VISION 9: Become a Genius Of Society.
VISION 10:Have Everything You ever wanted (via the free-to-soar geniuses and super technologies.
VISION 11: Ride A Prosperity Wave To Riches (via falling prices and soaring buying power)
VISION 12 : Enjoy Nearly Perfect Health (via soaring medical technologies and falling prices)

I got this at TVP Massachusetts | 12 VISIONS

So now a discussion might be possible.

(Or I'm completely wrong and the OP will set me straight.)

Hi there Kavatz, welcome to the forum. I personally like many aspects of TVP (while disagreeing on details or seeing it as a concept art as opposed to an actual plan you can build with, but it deserves credit) and I think "something" like a RBE is the way to go, but Im not sure this is best place for discussing because there are few (I assume) who share my/our conclusions and many that still within the monetary systems point of view. (Its nonetheless a good place to throw ideas around and get a variety of points of views).

"they are no doubt doing the bidding" well, anythings possible, but no doubt is a bit far. Imo the bulk of the problems/opposition comes from systemic tendencies/symptoms, there are agent provocateurs we know this for a fact, but its quite possible that tensions/quarrels are just the result of conflicting views with uneven moods.

So far my conclusion is that money is one of our civilizations problems (because it generates conflicts of interest, and facilitates concentration of power and corruption) along with hierarchy and control of information/secrecy.

I look forward to reading your obvervations/toughts and conclusions about an experimental system of governance that could lead in a RBE 's direction.

cheers

Departmental Governance

Put simply, DG (Department Governance) is a framework for governing a nation. It consists of processes for

a. determining the Leadership that represents the nation at home and internationally
b. legislative decision-making
c. power checks/balances and a public activism platform
d. perfecting "democracy by representation" through modern technology and Responsible Capitalism
e. managing the ongoing operations of the public sector
f. eliminating waste/corruption and local-to-national economic weaknesses

What makes DG different?

- No voting
- No traditional political parties
- No top leader, president or prime minister
- No max/min duration for politicians in power
- No nation-wide control by one entity
- No significant ability to influence government with money

Why the name?

It's called Departmental to describe the political separation of "Departments".

Good examples for Departments (hypothetical names for demonstration purposes), would be the Justice Department and the Economics Department. There would also be Departments for Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, Medical Technology, Human Services, Infrastructure... you get the picture. Whatever a nation naturally, logically needs to manage, there is a Department for it. So, if you see the word "Justice", it likely means "The Justice Department", or "The Department of Justice".

The simplified idea is that each Department is a self-governing unit, or a silo of autonomous decision-making authority. Departments do not interfere with the affairs of others, except for when interdepartmental cooperation is necessary. (You will see how Justice and Economics are the two "special" Departments where interdepartmental cooperation is a daily activity - not with each other specifically, but with every other official Department.)

The most significant difference between this and any other system is the arrangement of the "politically engaged", or what today would be called the electorate (voters). There are various roles that engaged citizens can occupy in pursuit of political fulfillment.

Each Department has a set of Leaders (collectively known as the Departmental Leadership, or just Leadership). As previously mentioned, there are no more traditional "political parties" dividing the nation. To join the Leadership of a Department, you must be employed by it. This is public sector employment. Every Department guarantees full employment to anyone who needs it in order to engage in this way.

Each Department has its own Constituency (the evolution from today's electorate). To be a member of a particular Departmental Constituency, you must be employed by it.

The above two paragraphs describe two roles in which politically engaged citizens participate to influence decision-making.

The significant difference that makes Departmental Governance unique is that a Departmental Constituency does not evaluate the Leadership of other Departments. Also, there is no more voting, but rather a system of "Leadership Evaluations".

To become a leader, one must be employed by a Department. Once registered, half of the workday becomes Leadership Training. A Leader in training does everything a Leader is expected to do:

- Study
- Travel
- Speak
- Debate
- Mentor

Registered leaders become available for Evaluation by the Constituency, with a public record and score card. As the Leader works to improve society, the goal is to rise in popularity.

As an Evaluator (individual among the Constituency), I have access to a list of all registered Leaders and their record as a registered Leader.

An Evaluator can evaluate each Leader only one time per Evaluation Period, which can be a week or a month (whatever the Department decides). Evaluators can evaluate as many Leaders as they wish.

Leadership popularity is determined by an equation involving how many evaluations a Leader receives in an Evaluation Period, and the quality of Evaluations. Neither on their own determine the Leader's status or "fit" for higher (decision-maker) positions.

A Leader's position is always in jeopardy, as contenders are in line, willing and ready for action. We know at any given time the structure of Leadership as well as the current order of succession should positions be lost due to either poor Evaluations or unanticipated tragedy. There is no fixed term of office. In nearly an instant, the Constituency could democratically, collectively "shuffle" for a more ideal Leadership.

Leaders will be closely watched during Legislative Court, where the big decisions (law, etc.) are made. Technology allows the Constituency (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the public) to "weigh in" during Court sessions, but cannot override a decision. They can, however, make it evident during a session, on a big display for all to see, who will still hold their Leadership position the next day.

The strength in the design of the structure illustrated so far is at least three-fold:

- Leadership is strong, qualified, well-known/understood by, highly accountable to, and at the mercy of their Constituency. Corruption is crippled.
- Continuity is strong, as top-qualified and respected Leaders are always prepared to fill vacated positions.
- Departmental Constituency A does not interfere with the decision-making of Departmental Constituency B, and vice versa. The best, most responsible decisions are made.

The last main element to touch on at a very high level is the Activist Opposition Party (the new Political Party). This is at first a tricky concept to grasp, but with a little effort it quickly makes sense. It's best summarized as groups of concerned citizens, like Greenpeace, who register their Party as Opposition to specific Department(s).

Activist Parties have even greater influence in Legislative decision-making than a whole Constituency. They sit in on the Legislative Court sessions if a decision of concern is on the table. They can force a Leadership into three full Rounds of debate before a small group of objective, anonymous "special" Judges from the Justice Department determine the outcome.

There's much more, but how's that for a start?

icewendigo, it was nice to see your reply! I bet we're on the same page in a lot of places.

I sometimes imagine what the relationship might be like, between the most admired leader and the next most admired leader in a department.

A Leader in training does everything a Leader is expected to do:

- Study
- Travel
- Speak
- Debate
- Mentor

But a top-level leader, the one in the department most admired by the constituency, has a unique responsibility: legislative decision-making.

If leader 1 is a mentor and close friend of leader 2, would leader 2 sympathize when leader 1 is put in an impossible situation?
If leader 1 must make a decision he/she knows is right, but will cost the top-leader position, would leader 2 sympathize or strategize?

My thoughts are that in an RBE, when money is no longer a prime motivator, our behavior and thought patterns will be nothing like today. Our leaders will want the best of the best to be representing the department, and will do what they can to boost each other. They will support each other, all the way down the line, as each is a mentor to the next. This will become the culture of leadership in a DG nation/world.

My preference for a society I would want to live in appears to be very different from the one you might prefer, Ill go into details later but I was wondering

what you mean by leader (I may be stumbling on semantics or not capture the nuance you have in mind)

ex:

Humans since cavemen and the dark ages have been used to leaders and chieftains, etc, but why should this focus be perpetuated in a society without money based on voluntary contributions?

Couldnt normal citizens
- Study
- Travel
- Speak
- Debate
- Mentor
without the need for a leader label or hierarchic status?

Remember, this is for the transitional period. It's a form of governance we can slip into without fear of chaos. If understood, average people might not be so hesitant to go this way. Departmental Governance is not a final destination. It can stretch on into the early phases of an RBE and eventually become a history lesson in kid schools.

You'll see things like Leader or Department, with upper-case letters. It just reads better to me like that, and these are terms that belong in the DG dictionary. That being said, I'm not attached to names, so Leader can be replaced by another term at any time. The terms were chosen in an effort to stay simple.

A Leader is someone who is excellent in their preferred area of knowledge (their Department). They are recognized by their Departmental Constituency (another "placeholder" term), as being extremely competent and trustworthy. They are the most qualified in their Department to make decisions for the people.

Leaders are people who strive to improve society and role-models. They are heroes. Their Constituents know them and can relate to them.

Another good reason to have Leaders in place, and the next best ready for action, and many other potential successors standing by, in order of perceived quality... is the fortification it provides. In national emergencies, or when Leaders' lives are in jeopardy, there is no question whether or not the Leadership would survive.

Today's leaders cannot solve all our problems or know what combination of policies is good for everyone.

Imagine the Engineering Department, taking requests from any entity needing machine or structural designs. The Engineering Constituency (employees of the Department) would have a pretty good idea which of those engineers should be making important decisions affecting the global population. Someone from the Justice Department, who has no clue about engineering, should have no input or affect on decision-making in Engineering.

What I'm trying to say there is that the approach has never been tried. Sure, anyone can be a leader, however they want. Any citizen can be employed by the Department of their choice and immediately register for Leadership, if they want to take the "structured" route.

The Activist Opposition Parties will structure their leaderships as they see fit, and will produce representatives to challenge Leaders in Legislative Court. Any citizen can be in a Party, and can influence leadership activities to the best of their abilities.

They are the most qualified in their Department to make decisions for the people.

Leaders are people who strive to improve society and role-models. They are heroes. Their Constituents know them and can relate to them.

How does this differ from any other overtly authoritarian form of government?

It really makes little difference whether people claim a right to lead on the basis of their birth or their military prowess or their claims to expertise, it's still claiming a right to leadership rather than the agreement and consent of the governed.

Imagine the Engineering Department, taking requests from any entity needing machine or structural designs. The Engineering Constituency (employees of the Department) would have a pretty good idea which of those engineers should be making important decisions affecting the global population. Someone from the Justice Department, who has no clue about engineering, should have no input or affect on decision-making in Engineering.

And who and how decides or even bothers to check whether any given "engineering proposal" needs to be checked out with transport infrastructure/ plans, housing infrastructure/ plans, hospital / medical centre infrastructure/ plans, industry and agriculture organisation/ plans and all the rest of the stuff that needs looking at when proposing to do anything physical anywhere.

It sounds like you think DG is an authoritarian form of government, when you say "any other overtly authoritarian form of government".

It is clearly much different from authoritarian forms of government.
- No one entity has supreme power, there are many departments with their own leaderships. No one department/leadership is more powerful than another.
- A leader has no min/max duration in power. The people of a department can quickly remove that person... within a matter of days, or even minutes.
- Leaders do not "claim a right to lead". The departmental constituency evaluates leaders. The people's current perception of every leader is always known - it's public information, always up to date.

And who and how decides or even bothers to check whether any given "engineering proposal" needs to be checked out with transport infrastructure/ plans, housing infrastructure/ plans, hospital / medical centre infrastructure/ plans, industry and agriculture organisation/ plans and all the rest of the stuff that needs looking at when proposing to do anything physical anywhere.

I don't see this as an issue. It has been worked out in the past to some extent, and can be worked out even easier in the future, when dynamics change for the better. The system change will not result in a dumber, less organized population.

So forget about DG for now, maybe I'll dedicate a new thread to it. Can someone point me to plans by TVP to facilitate the transition to an RBE? I see a lot of "what it will be like", but not much "how we will get there". Is the plan still to let it happen naturally while designing the future? I believe it will eventually happen by itself naturally, but I want RBE now!

Can someone point me to plans by TVP to facilitate the transition to an RBE? I see a lot of "what it will be like", but not much "how we will get there".

A TVP related site would probably contain further information about it. Afaik they want to educate people about the concepts, and are planning eventual preparation to someday build a test city to showcase how a RBE might be like. Never mind how to get there, I havent seen details on how they are to be organized (how do you coordinate the activities of volunteers in practice/reality).


Imo TVP, like Davinci's concept drawings of flying contraptions that pushed the idea that human flight was possible, TVP deserves credit for promoting the notion/idea that an alternate system without money is possible and desirable (in the case of flight however, the Wright brothers took the general idea and experimented on models that had the merit of being applied in the real world and with trials and modifications to account for various problems they encountered, they eventually made it a reality).


Im more attracted to a network of small/local self-governed communities that cooperate, I think it easier to start small and grow than try to start big. Smaller scale facilitates diversity, and diversity allows a better match between how the group operates and peoples preferences, a better match makes it easier to be happy/in harmony. Imo the most important part, the key, is how a group of people (community/city/cooperative/company) and their activities are "organized". In a similar fashion to a tiny seed, can grow into a forest, it is small but it integrates and "organizes" molecules around it to create a larger organism, a tree, which can multiply into variants of itself.


So I dont think we need to build a new city of the future, whats needed is for a group of people that share a similar view on how their community could be organized to start/found a relatively regular green/sustainable-ish town but where the major difference would be how they organize themselves.


The starting point could be a regular town's model of operation, which you gradually reshape by reducing the work hours of people within, and
increasing the access to volunteering with training and particiapation. Instead of seeing municipal functions as silos, you open it up, and determine what can be made available to volunteers with basic training, make the training avalaible(free) and teach the people whose occupation it is to become supervisors/responsible as in they can delegate simple tasks while being responsible for the results and doing the tasks when theres a shortage of volunteers. Its the opposite of silos, since we organize to maximize and facilitate participation of volunteers (where it is possible, safe, relatively efficient and easy to do so).


The community needs a system to coordinate tasks, training, scheduling, backup/on call, supervision/help, facilitation/automation/innovation.


So you have a wide array of things you can do to help the comminuty ("ask not.. ...but what you can do for your country" on a smaller scale), these are easy to learn about and easy to participate in. Because you have more open functions/occupations you will minimize the ivory-tower/corporatisms/bureaucratic-detatchment-from-reality that is prevalent in institutions, you will have more rounded citizens with a wider array of knowledge(basics in many fields) in addition to a potential specialization.

...these are my thoughts so far anyway...

Don't you think that dropping borders, making all resources the common heritage of all people is necessary to prevent disputes? Whenever a community needs resources, they will do what they can to acquire them, sometimes at great cost/sacrifice.

Don't you think we need to know exactly what resources are available, where they are located and how much there is?

Shouldn't we manage the world's resources intelligently from one "mind", rather than a mass of disconnected planners?

What does one small community want that the next one doesn't want? If you have freedom and safety, and needs are met, wouldn't people have nothing else to desire but cultural/traditional type stuff?

If something should be illegal in one community, why shouldn't it be illegal everywhere? The community is either wrong or they've stumbled onto something new. Anything is either right or wrong, it doesn't depend on location.


And thanks for replying. I actually started here thinking this forum was a TVP initiative.

icewendigo You need to watch this if you haven't already. It is probably exactly what you're looking for in terms of redesign:
ubuntu: Farming and Agriculture

This is an extraordinary presentation: Michael Tellinger : Ancient technology and the Ubuntu movement - YouTube

Oh, this is probably a better link: http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/2012/0...ral-towns.html

Heres a relatively good presentation imo



Ill get back to your questions when I have a few minutes , cheers

Great presentation indeed, thanks a lot for sharing! How comfortable would you be switching to an RBE overnight, like tomorrow currency is reduced to waste and game pieces and you don't need a job? I'm ready and willing. In fact, I would give my left arm to switch tomorrow, no joke.

Still, what's always missing is the political system and leadership. You know that I'm not referring to the politics we have today. Some form of politics will always exist, even in anarchy. In an RBE, it will be respected experts that people admire and trust to spearhead issues and decision-making. Here's my elaboration:

A "medium level Leader", for lack of a better term, will raise an important issue affecting his community, motivated by people in his community. They look to him because he is running for Leadership in his Department, and the issue lands within the jurisdiction of his Department. Tackling this issue is a wise political move, as he will be rewarded with respect and valuable evaluations. He is not motivated by money, as money no longer exists. There is no power motive in the "coercion" sense - that just isn't possible. His motivation is for partly for fame and recognition, but mostly because he knows he can make a difference. He wants to leave a lasting impression on generations to come.

I would hope than in an RBE there is no intention to automate all governance, and that no control should be beyond humanity. In a stable environment, sure, let the program do its thing, but when a new variable or some unanticipated game-changer comes into play, a human needs to be there to make the call, with the full knowledgebase and all relevant statistics at hand. They need to be held accountable and put in place by a truly democratic system.

DG is the democratic system an RBE requires. It can be fully implemented in any variant of modern economic systems. It can be used to pull society back together and facilitate the inevitable RBE transition.


One thing I always like to hear Joseph or Fresco talk about is how there will certainly be enough citizens volunteering to work. Sure a lot of people will enjoy the freedom to be lazy, smoke pot and play video games all day for the rest of their existence. Even so, there will be more people willing to do good things than there will be good things to do. That, I truly believe. Some people will want to spend the rest of their life doing nothing but being fit and sunburned. Who can complain about that, if they are not hurting anyone or anything. Everyone deserves the right to learn, practice and do anything, without having to dedicate any amount of their time to the betterment of society, so long as they are not causing any trouble.

Studies have proven that in situations where money is the motivator, where the individual is well-compensated with money for their work, they will be less efficient/effective than if less/no money was the motivator. However, I believe this was less true in boring work, like a janitor working for survival would probably do a better job for $1/hour more. Well, in an RBE, any work that can be automated will be automated. All things will be made better with less/no human effort.
Resources Department employee to the good citizen in an RBE: "Oh, you want to be a good citizen and plant trees? Sorry, that's completely automated now, you'll have to find something else. Are you interested becoming more educated in this or any related subject?"

my thoughts opinions:


"How comfortable would you be switching to an RBE overnight"
I would be as comfortable as leaping off a cliff in an untested flying contraption inspired by concept art of Leonado DaVinci. Im all for flying, but the wright brothers had to build detailed prototype (not ideal airplane but a functional one) that were then tested and improved. Im 100% behind a Moneyless economy, but imo the devil is in the details, the system needs to be designed with details thought through and then changed(improved), that is, made different from the idealized initial vision based on the results from testing in real conditions(the same way the fancy davinci contraption which is great on paper might have to be modified in order for it to fly in reality).




Leader:
Theres no need for the concept of leader, look at wikipedia or open source projects, it can be a collaborative effort, the concept of leader is imo a characteristic of old tribal/feudal systems. Anyone with an idea can propose it, instead of a leader, you can have coordinators, presentators. the leader has zero authority, he has ideas like anyone else and has abilities, he doesnt need the status of leader for anything, if he is good at coordinating a group he can do that, if he is articulate and knowlegeble about a projects objectives he can be a spokespereson, any person can take the lead, its not for one person with a label to tell people what to do, its a volunteer system, there is zero authority, no one needs to follow x for a paycheck.


" how there will certainly be enough citizens volunteering to work."
YEs there will be many volunteers, the issue is will there be the right amount at every instant for each function that is required. The anwer might be no, and it certtainly is no without a coordiation system that makes sure the communitys functions/needs and the matching volunteer schedules are monitored/open/transparent and prioritized.

Right now in a school, if toilet paper is missing, its just missing, and nothing will be done about it until the janitor happens to go there. But there could be a rotating schedule of volunteers, with every student (not just the volunteers) able to signal(smartphone) the fact that toilet paper is missing in bathroom 34, with volunteers able to see this instantly, the volunteers on that day have access to the closet where toilet paper is stored, and the first volunteer that has a chance and feels like doing it signals hes on it and signals when its done, if none among the volunteers take care of business before a certain time the janitor(acting as a advisor/supervisor/backup) will (the buck stops at him).


Our current system is not sufficiently participative, if student are thought that its their school and they can participate in as many aspects/functions as they are able to and interested in, they dont need to sit back as followers/subordinates/spectators (and wait for a leader to come on a white horse to tell them what to do), they can learn about how the school functions, what needs to be done, learn abilities/procedure required for simple tasks (easy and safe for students) and volunteer in the functions that interest them or that they see is in need.

Many of the idealized systems ignore human psychology, peoples hardwired propensity to get the most gain with minimum investment of energy.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Many of the idealized systems ignore human psychology, peoples hardwired propensity to get the most gain with minimum investment of energy.

Which systems specifically are you referring to?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

my thoughts opinions:


"How comfortable would you be switching to an RBE overnight"
I would be as comfortable as leaping off a cliff in an untested flying contraption inspired by concept art of Leonado DaVinci. Im all for flying, but the wright brothers had to build detailed prototype (not ideal airplane but a functional one) that were then tested and improved. Im 100% behind a Moneyless economy, but imo the devil is in the details, the system needs to be designed with details thought through and then changed(improved), that is, made different from the idealized initial vision based on the results from testing in real conditions(the same way the fancy davinci contraption which is great on paper might have to be modified in order for it to fly in reality).

Glad to hear it, because if we don't go in this direction... it's pretty much game over anyway, right?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Leader:
Theres no need for the concept of leader, look at wikipedia or open source projects, it can be a collaborative effort, the concept of leader is imo a characteristic of old tribal/feudal systems. Anyone with an idea can propose it, instead of a leader, you can have coordinators, presentators. the leader has zero authority, he has ideas like anyone else and has abilities, he doesnt need the status of leader for anything, if he is good at coordinating a group he can do that, if he is articulate and knowlegeble about a projects objectives he can be a spokespereson, any person can take the lead, its not for one person with a label to tell people what to do, its a volunteer system, there is zero authority, no one needs to follow x for a paycheck.

I would have to argue that there should be recognized leaders. These are not divine-right, self appointed masters with infinite power! You might have to consider that the stereotype given to the term "leader" may be causing a perceptual error. I agree that open source is the way to go. If the final destination is total open source collaboration to arrive at difficult decisions in all aspects of governance, that may be fine, though way too idealistic for today's society and transition to RBE. There needs to be recognized leaders to give peace of mind to the masses of people who fear and ignore change.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

" how there will certainly be enough citizens volunteering to work."
YEs there will be many volunteers, the issue is will there be the right amount at every instant for each function that is required. The anwer might be no, and it certtainly is no without a coordiation system that makes sure the communitys functions/needs and the matching volunteer schedules are monitored/open/transparent and prioritized.

Right now in a school, if toilet paper is missing, its just missing, and nothing will be done about it until the janitor happens to go there. But there could be a rotating schedule of volunteers, with every student (not just the volunteers) able to signal(smartphone) the fact that toilet paper is missing in bathroom 34, with volunteers able to see this instantly, the volunteers on that day have access to the closet where toilet paper is stored, and the first volunteer that has a chance and feels like doing it signals hes on it and signals when its done, if none among the volunteers take care of business before a certain time the janitor(acting as a advisor/supervisor/backup) will (the buck stops at him).

See, I think people are quite responsible and will take on the responsibility to maintain, repair, and improve systems when needed. If kids have nothing to clean their ass with, technology can easily be set up to order right from the manufacture line and deliver to the point of use. If the previous method of ensuring paper is well-stocked fails, people will adapt by doing such things as giving the responsibility to children (who are quite capable).

Another example is if the food production system begins to fail, a leader will step in and prevent the population from starving. I guarantee that. If a bridge was collapsing and government was unable to do anything about it, citizens will, provided money is not part of the equation.

"If something should be illegal in one community, why shouldn't it be illegal everywhere? The community is either wrong or they've stumbled onto something new. Anything is either right or wrong,"

If its legal to smoke a cigarette on an isolated mountain top, should you also smoke in the confines of the international space station?
If one community allows public nudity, should everyone else allow it, or if some dont want this should everyone in the world be prevented to?

So there are things that are neither wrong nor right, but that some people might want and others might not.

On top of the non desirable less diversity aspect of a one-size-fits-all one world view, theres the consideration for the reality that a lot of people would not want a RBE specially a one world one (as opposed to a decentralized network that allows other people to live according to their current values/preferences)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"If something should be illegal in one community, why shouldn't it be illegal everywhere? The community is either wrong or they've stumbled onto something new. Anything is either right or wrong,"

If its legal to smoke a cigarette on an isolated mountain top, should you also smoke in the confines of the international space station?
If one community allows public nudity, should everyone else allow it, or if some dont want this should everyone in the world be prevented to?

So there are things that are neither wrong nor right, but that some people might want and others might not.

On top of the non desirable less diversity aspect of a one-size-fits-all one world view, theres the consideration for the reality that a lot of people would not want a RBE specially a one world one (as opposed to a decentralized network that allows other people to live according to their current values/preferences)

In an educated society, people would democratically decide that it's fine to have designated smoking and nudity-safe places. Enough people will agree that if a community wants to be nude and they aren't hurting anyone else (like walking into a church naked with an erection), then by all means.

It should be legal to smoke on the international space station... who would be stupid enough to though? It should be legal to smoke in the car with your kids, but then society should be allowed to remove those kids from that toxic environment without consideration for the well-being of the parent. That's just my flawed opinion, I'm sure an educated democratic society would find a better solution.

RBE is the economic system. Live your life how you want! The economic system is just how resources are allocated, and RBE allows for far greater diversity than we can have in the current economic system. As far as democracy and responsible governance goes, RBE does not account for this missing aspect of life, which is what Departmental Government brings to the table.

"Enough people will agree that if a community wants to be nude"
What I am attempting to convey, is that imo;
-a- its up to that community to decide (not for people on the other side of the planet) and
- b - it makes sense to have regions/zones where the rules/code/lifestyle are different based on the local climate/conditions/values/culture as opposed to a pan-continental or planetary wide set of rules

Im giving examples, but hope that the general idea behind them is conveyed.

By the same token, it makes sense for communities to share protocols/rules that are common to a network, but imo its up to the local people to decide which network rules/protocol to adopt and for them to decide if they want to reject or change them rather than having a given world-order imposed (presumably by people claiming their system is "voluntary") ("You are free to use any system just as long as its the one-world-borg-resistance-is-futile-RBE" )
cheers

I hear what you're saying. It's not wrong to do anything that doesn't hurt someone. It is probably wrong to not have a sign that says "This is a nudist community", just like it's wrong to have an electric fence around your house without enough warning signs.

Let's have another example. Should a community be allowed to sacrifice virgins? Should a community have the right to actively promote racism? No, it doesn't matter where you live, that can't be permitted anywhere. If a woman wants to be a slave, and not show her skin or be in public without her "man", and no coercion is involved, then by all means she should join the community where that's accepted.

If a community is in any way damaging to anything else, the world community needs to take responsibility and democratically fix it. The global democracy will not remove the rights/freedoms of a community unless what it does offends enough of the population to the point of action.

The one main thing people need to understand is that RBE is not government at all and does not impose any belief/lifestyle restrictions on anyone. Capitalism doesn't do that either. The powers that be in the "democratic free-market capitalism" of today have warped capitalism into something different, and intertwined itself with governance so that the political system represents corporations over people.

Without saying "this is what governance could be like in an RBE", we have to assume RBE is government. I think this is the flaw in the way RBE is presented.