Discussion Topic: Common Centred Thought Experiment:
The idea here is to start with a proposed political setup where every voter initially belongs to the CommonSense Centre politic CSC, and opts out to other politics should they see fit. There are checks and balances, but this is the status quo.
Our first task is to run time backwards from the future CSC until we get to where we are now-ish, sort-of imagining it might degenerate in steps down to today’s politics as found globally.
The next task, with time running forward normally, is to retrace those steps from now to the future CommonSense Centre, bearing in mind our predictions, ie what would need to go wrong to reproduce today’s woes. This task would help form the necessary CSC checks and balances.
In Summary:
Task (1) identify the steps whereby the CommonSense Centre politic degenerates into today’s mess?
Task(2) Identify how we might get to the presumably desirable CSC situation, avoiding the breakdown steps found in task (1)
Finally, Task(3): Implement the steps in Task(2) starting with your keyboard, your voice and your vote.
How are we doing for commonsense out there? (It’s not that rare, surely)
Mind explaining what in the world what you’re talking about? What’s a “politic CSC”, and who or what is the CommonSense Centre?
Indeed.
This makes no sense without context.
CSC is an imaginary politic I made up. It’s a thought experiment, albeit shared. A way to think and talk about political realities without engaging directly in oppositional polemic.Thats why I say ‘politic’, not ‘party’. Same thing, less flammable.
A large part of the problem is that people disagree about what’s “common sense”.
So without some clearer form of definition I don’t understand how to run the thought experiment. But getting to a clear definition would be a problem in itself – unless you’ve already got one; but stating it if so might just set off an argument about whether that actually is someplace that we all want to go.
Hard to work with undefined imaginary words and terms. Can you rework this using real words and terms?
The larger problem is the word “CommonSense”, which might not have anything at all to do with “common sense”.
As a starter, how could it go wrong? We have one presumably large Center, to which everyone initially belongs, until they feel sufficiently motivated to set up a group with different politics to the CSC’s.
You’re starting with a situation in which everybody agrees with each other? And with a population level somewhere within screaming distance of our current one?
What species are we talking about, here? Because it doesn’t seem to me to be humans.
Also, I don’t see how we can consider what motivates people to start disagreeing if we have no idea what they’re disagreeing with.
I’d start by defining commonsense as that shared wisdom that people do in fact agree on. In this imaginary future the CSC concentrates itself on what we all agree politics should be doing for us.
Contentious subjects are dealt with peripherally, even outside the CSC.
In what way is “CommonSense” different from “common sense?”
BTW, this is the first time you have mentioned that whatever this is is taking place in an imaginary future.
Thanks for engaging. I’d hate to be blanked…
I didn’t say it would be easy. It’s hard to see how we would get there, that’s why step(1) is how it might go wrong, knowing our current human weaknesses in politics. It’s a scenario that could help us expose the vulnerabilities of ‘centrist’ thinking, while simultaneously seeing how the less helpful human weaknesses might be countered - say, if we had a desirable happier situation to defend.
Nothing? Really? I’d expect you to sign up to most common human requirements…
It would be nice if there were such a thing. I don’t think there is.
I mean, maybe we can agree that politics should be keeping us all from randomly killing each other. But that “randomly” gets pretty tricky.
I wouldn’t have thought that vaccinating people against contagious disease would be a contentious subject. But it is.
In some imaginary future, humans think in an undefined different way, and you want us to tell you something about what their political beliefs are/should be?
Apologies, I thought it was crazily utopian enough to place it in the future. The idea is, imagine how something might be, see how to get there - but first predict how a CSC political setup might go wrong so we’d end up back here. Use that exercise to envisage better checks and balances, and then envisage the steps needed to get to there from where we are.
This is the Politics Category, right? I hope it being Factual does not rule out imagining how we might change things more effectively?
Could you show us an example of what it is you are looking for? If I asked this question of you, how would you respond?
To me, the OP sounds like something that would be on the final exam in whatever class would teach “CommonSense”.