I've read this whole thread and I still can't understand the mission of this party. Could I get a working definition of the Pragmatic Rationalist Party without the definition using the words pragmatic and rational? Using the words that need to be defined in the definition does not help much when it comes to understanding them. Another question I have is about government. Earlier in the thread a question was asked about abortion and the answer had to do with the stated goals of government. What is the role of government, according to the pragmatic rationalist party?
I will be in the U.S. at this time, which is a heck of a lot better with regards to being able to make it than Australia. It seems like it would be a good idea to come, and though my motives are decidedly impure, I do aim for pragmatic rationalism.
It should be the Gorgeous Party, which solves all problems with strutting.
I would be interested in attending, at least to learn more. I would be particularly interested in discussing education; huge wrinkles in No Child Left Behind need to be ironed out, because that initiative has left everybody behind.
The Unity Party: It's main issue should be purifying the US political system, as in making politicians less beholden to special interest groups or political parties and thus more responsible to the people. Removing laws that haven't worked out or have served their purpose, or targeted legislation that ended up being applied broadly are also part of the purification process.
Seriously, you would have to accept members regardless of political opinion, other than being anti-corruption, and be completely focused on/dicks about removing corruption from our system.
I should note that high level goals are the focus, not implementation details. Don't say "we should repeal/amend X law." Say "we should strive for Y result." Don't tell me how you want to do something, tell me what you want to do.
How about stopping all the woo that gets marketed as "immune boosting," "fights illness," and whatnot? Also, every child should be vaccinated.
Is is the belief of this party that there are three obligatory components to all government policy: rationality, pragmatism, and a reliance upon stated goals.
Rationality
All public policy, at all levels, must be guided by and based upon sound, logical reasoning and the continued examination and re-examination of verifiable evidence. Furthermore, no policy, be it a law, precedent, or other such instrument, should exist that does not either futher or preserve the stated goals of the society.
Pragmatism Regardless of the merits of any particular ideological underpinning, all public policy, at all levels, must take into account the practical effects thereof in terms of achieving the stated goals of said policy, and as well its effect on the general stated goals of the society itself.
A Reliance Upon Stated Goals
In order to effectively evaluate any public policy, there must first be a generally-agreed-upon framework of goals. These goals must furthermore be prioritized, so that when two or more are found mutually exclusive in practical policy, they can be objectively reconciled to a reasonable degree.
If ever a policy is proposed which will further one particular goal at the expense of another, the latter goal must always either be of lesser priority or present a clear exception with extraordinary logical (not ideological) underpinning.
Whensoever goal priorites are altered, it should be understood that the existing body of policy and law would be, as best as was practical, re-evaluated in this new light.
Discussion:
Rationality
Any law should have a clear, stated intent. Said law should be subject to regular, obligatory scrutiny to determine whether it is indeed serving in a verifiable way to achieve said intent, and furthermore whether or not it is having a possibly detrimental effect on some other stated goal of society.
To best achieve this, there must be introduced a divide between intent and execution. In an ideal government, the Congress would vote first not on a specific law, but on a specific intent. Once an intent was agreed upon, then proposals for how to achieve said intent could be presented, examined, and compared within the framework of the intent alone.
This separation serves a very important purpose. In our current Congress, intent and execution are conflated to the point that the ideological concerns of the former continue to factor even as the practical realities of the latter are being examined. Proposals and debate always mix intent with execution, leading to a number of undesirable scenarios. Consider the following issues:
...
I have a large body of writing, but nothing beyond the above is what I would call clear just yet. It basically consists of example issues and an examination of them in terms of the three principles above. The rest is simply a listing of all major policy issues and an initial stance (based on my own personal stance) for each. The goal of the first meeting is simply to agree on the core ideology and then hopefully agree on an order of importance for individual issues.
Issue stances will be debatable. Core ideology will not. If the latter, in its final form, is unacceptable to the membership, then the party will disband. The only debate will be on actual issues.
90% of the issues I'm dealing with involve the handling of money. Whenever we get to the point of a proper meeting, the first order of business will be to find a treasurer: I simply will not be able to manage it on my own.
Enlighten the voteJust spent the evening talking to the head of this organization, they provide money for any canidates that are atheists or strongly support seperation of church and state.
That is fairly vague without the enumeration of the goals.
Because the enumeration of goals is the duty of the party, not the duty of the founder. The goals would have be evaluated by the party and agreed upon.
I'm debating myself whether to actually write them myself initially, or let them come from the first meeting. If I write an initial set, it may unduly influence the goals of the party by conflating them with my own personal goals. The only actual, direct platform of the party is the above: the rest is just details that can and will change over time.
In order to get on board with any party, I, personally, would need to know the initial goals and/or the overarching goals. All I see here is a vague outline of methodology.
In order to get on board with any party, I, personally, would need to know the initial goals and/or the overarching goals. All I see here is a vague outline of methodology.
Think of it like this.
Right now you choose a party based on ideology. You pick the party that has the same goals as you do. Then they are all horribly ineffective at achieving those goals. They even act against their own ideologies for other interests due to ignorance, corruption, etc.
The idea here is that there are no stated goals because the goals of the party are always the goals of the people. If the people want X, the goals are X. If the people want Y, the goals are Y. The deciding of the goals is the democracy part. If the party has one goal, it is to effectively strive towards the democratically decided upon goals of the society by pragmatic and rational means. The party that actually gets it done, intelligently and scientifically, regardless of what it may be.
I, personally, would need to know the initial goals and/or the overarching goals.
The party is 100% ideology-neutral. It calls for a rational approach to government, and as such, the primary platform will involve political process reform. The party will not likely be large enough to effect policy change for a long time, let alone field candidates. It must thus call for reform that transcends policy and strikes only to the heart of process. Procedural change, at this point, matters more than every single issue on the plate combined.
Health care reform failed because it conflated goals with implementation. The core issues were never debated in and of themselves. Imagine if debate and voting in Congress followed these steps:
1. Debate the goal 2. Vote on the goal 3. If the goal is passed by both houses, we move on to achievement of that goal 4. Laws are proposed to achieve the goal 5. Laws are voted on 6. (n months or years later): Laws are evaluated in light of the progress toward the goal and, if necessary, changed/removed.
Every law should have two votes. First, a vote on what we are trying to achieve, and second, a vote on each law that aims to achieve it.
I am all for your methodology, but I cannot and will not back something of which I do not agree with ideologically. If I join the party and the party decides that they think the most rational solution to solving educational problems is to get rid of guaranteed public education, then I would have to leave the party after helping to build it up. I appreciate the method, but the goals that one would seek to achieve the method are necessary before I, and I would think most others, would ascribe to the party.
EDIT: If your aim is reform of process then set goals of what that reform would be and how it would be achieved. I can imagine your scenario easily. Is it the goal of the party to change the set up of the Federal Congress to work in that way?
If I join the party and the party decides that they think the most rational solution to solving educational problems is to get rid of guaranteed public education, then I would have to leave the party after helping to build it up.
Even if that somehow does solve pretty much all of the problems?
If I join the party and the party decides that they think the most rational solution to solving educational problems is to get rid of guaranteed public education, then I would have to leave the party after helping to build it up.
Even if that somehow does solve pretty much all of the problems?
It really doesn't. There are such a variety of options that could be seen as equally rational and pragmatic. It breaks down to whatever is most popular regardless of what aims one might have. The general method is great. How it is applied and to what ends may not be so great.
If I join the party and the party decides that they think the most rational solution to solving educational problems is to get rid of guaranteed public education, then I would have to leave the party after helping to build it up.
Even if that somehow does solve pretty much all of the problems?
It really doesn't. There are such a variety of options that could be seen as equally rational and pragmatic. It breaks down to whatever is most popular regardless of what aims one might have. The general method is great. How it is applied and to what ends may not be so great.
I was obviously speaking hypothetically. Your example is poor because you're talking about a policy rather than the goal. If the party works as proposed, nothing short of intellectual dishonesty will allow the choice of policy to be directly influenced by popularity.
I can understand that such a party could decide upon goals you would disagree with, but bringing up a specific policy based on an ideological stance (as you've just done) is precisely the sort of thing the party seems to be working against. I would presume that only the goals, not the policies, would be decided upon based on popularity. Once clear goals are established, the policies can be decided upon with means modelled more after the scientific method than democracy.
nce clear goals are established, the policies can be decided upon with means modelled more after the scientific method than democracy.
Yes. Democracy, in the modern world, should probably only be used to decide what we want. The duty of government is to achieve that as efficiently as possible within the greater constraints of civil rights and the social contract.
The question still stands: What is the party seeking to accomplish with this method? Is the party seeking to revamp our government's functionality? If so, then how?
That is incredibly vague, as I have said before. There needs to be some initial goal or overarching goal(s) for the party. This way we can not only define the party, but make mile-markers of our success which will help bring in new members. It will also aid in actually achieving something rather than languishing in nebulous inaction.
My Constitutional Law professor said something amusing today: "I have a confession to make. I... am a pragmatist."
Kate, I think the general idea is to get a bunch of rational people together and think of what some good first goals would be. Rym is not asking people to change their party affiliation before coming to a meeting. He is simply trying to get people to meet up and have a productive discussion to develop the goals. It's not like you have to commit to the party before the first meeting. There is no list of goals yet. That doesn't mean there isn't ever going to be. It needs to be built, and a collaborative process is most often better than a single person putting together a list of his own personal goals.
If the goals are important to you, then help build them. If it doesn't turn out the way you want, you don't have to stay with the party.
My Constitutional Law professor said something amusing today: "I have a confession to make. I... am a pragmatist."
Kate, I think the general idea is to get a bunch of rational people together and think of what some good first goals would be. Rym is not asking people to change their party affiliation before coming to a meeting. He is simply trying to get people to meet up and have a productive discussion to develop the goals. It's not like you have to commit to the party before the first meeting. There is no list of goals yet. That doesn't mean there isn't ever going to be. It needs to be built, and a collaborative process is most often better than a single person putting together a list of his own personal goals.
If the goals are important to you, then help build them. If it doesn't turn out the way you want, you don't have to stay with the party.
I understand that, that is why I am asking to discuss the goals here and now. Why wait or waste resources traveling?
Well, one fundamental problem is that a lot of people have ideas, but there wasn't a whole lot of discussion around them. Perhaps we [read: not me, I have too much homework] should set up another Google moderator queue with some of the suggested goals people have posted and have a poll to see which ones people tend to support? That would be a good starting point for discussion.
Comments
Rationality
Also, regarding your other question:
Government
Social Contract
I would be interested in attending, at least to learn more. I would be particularly interested in discussing education; huge wrinkles in No Child Left Behind need to be ironed out, because that initiative has left everybody behind.
Seriously, you would have to accept members regardless of political opinion, other than being anti-corruption, and be completely focused on/dicks about removing corruption from our system.
Also, every child should be vaccinated.
Is is the belief of this party that there are three obligatory components to all government policy: rationality, pragmatism, and a reliance upon stated goals.
Rationality
All public policy, at all levels, must be guided by and based upon sound, logical reasoning and the continued examination and re-examination of verifiable evidence. Furthermore, no policy, be it a law, precedent, or other such instrument, should exist that does not either futher or preserve the stated goals of the society.
Pragmatism
Regardless of the merits of any particular ideological underpinning, all public policy, at all levels, must take into account the practical effects thereof in terms of achieving the stated goals of said policy, and as well its effect on the general stated goals of the society itself.
A Reliance Upon Stated Goals
In order to effectively evaluate any public policy, there must first be a generally-agreed-upon framework of goals. These goals must furthermore be prioritized, so that when two or more are found mutually exclusive in practical policy, they can be objectively reconciled to a reasonable degree.
If ever a policy is proposed which will further one particular goal at the expense of another, the latter goal must always either be of lesser priority or present a clear exception with extraordinary logical (not ideological) underpinning.
Whensoever goal priorites are altered, it should be understood that the existing body of policy and law would be, as best as was practical, re-evaluated in this new light.
Discussion:
Rationality
Any law should have a clear, stated intent. Said law should be subject to regular, obligatory scrutiny to determine whether it is indeed serving in a verifiable way to achieve said intent, and furthermore whether or not it is having a possibly detrimental effect on some other stated goal of society.
To best achieve this, there must be introduced a divide between intent and execution. In an ideal government, the Congress would vote first not on a specific law, but on a specific intent. Once an intent was agreed upon, then proposals for how to achieve said intent could be presented, examined, and compared within the framework of the intent alone.
This separation serves a very important purpose. In our current Congress, intent and execution are conflated to the point that the ideological concerns of the former continue to factor even as the practical realities of the latter are being examined. Proposals and debate always mix intent with execution, leading to a number of undesirable scenarios. Consider the following issues:
...
I have a large body of writing, but nothing beyond the above is what I would call clear just yet. It basically consists of example issues and an examination of them in terms of the three principles above. The rest is simply a listing of all major policy issues and an initial stance (based on my own personal stance) for each. The goal of the first meeting is simply to agree on the core ideology and then hopefully agree on an order of importance for individual issues.
Issue stances will be debatable. Core ideology will not. If the latter, in its final form, is unacceptable to the membership, then the party will disband. The only debate will be on actual issues.
90% of the issues I'm dealing with involve the handling of money. Whenever we get to the point of a proper meeting, the first order of business will be to find a treasurer: I simply will not be able to manage it on my own.
I'm debating myself whether to actually write them myself initially, or let them come from the first meeting. If I write an initial set, it may unduly influence the goals of the party by conflating them with my own personal goals. The only actual, direct platform of the party is the above: the rest is just details that can and will change over time.
Right now you choose a party based on ideology. You pick the party that has the same goals as you do. Then they are all horribly ineffective at achieving those goals. They even act against their own ideologies for other interests due to ignorance, corruption, etc.
The idea here is that there are no stated goals because the goals of the party are always the goals of the people. If the people want X, the goals are X. If the people want Y, the goals are Y. The deciding of the goals is the democracy part. If the party has one goal, it is to effectively strive towards the democratically decided upon goals of the society by pragmatic and rational means. The party that actually gets it done, intelligently and scientifically, regardless of what it may be.
Health care reform failed because it conflated goals with implementation. The core issues were never debated in and of themselves. Imagine if debate and voting in Congress followed these steps:
1. Debate the goal
2. Vote on the goal
3. If the goal is passed by both houses, we move on to achievement of that goal
4. Laws are proposed to achieve the goal
5. Laws are voted on
6. (n months or years later): Laws are evaluated in light of the progress toward the goal and, if necessary, changed/removed.
Every law should have two votes. First, a vote on what we are trying to achieve, and second, a vote on each law that aims to achieve it.
I appreciate the method, but the goals that one would seek to achieve the method are necessary before I, and I would think most others, would ascribe to the party.
EDIT: If your aim is reform of process then set goals of what that reform would be and how it would be achieved. I can imagine your scenario easily. Is it the goal of the party to change the set up of the Federal Congress to work in that way?
The general method is great. How it is applied and to what ends may not be so great.
I can understand that such a party could decide upon goals you would disagree with, but bringing up a specific policy based on an ideological stance (as you've just done) is precisely the sort of thing the party seems to be working against. I would presume that only the goals, not the policies, would be decided upon based on popularity. Once clear goals are established, the policies can be decided upon with means modelled more after the scientific method than democracy.
(Hint: I'm trolling).
Kate, I think the general idea is to get a bunch of rational people together and think of what some good first goals would be. Rym is not asking people to change their party affiliation before coming to a meeting. He is simply trying to get people to meet up and have a productive discussion to develop the goals. It's not like you have to commit to the party before the first meeting. There is no list of goals yet. That doesn't mean there isn't ever going to be. It needs to be built, and a collaborative process is most often better than a single person putting together a list of his own personal goals.
If the goals are important to you, then help build them. If it doesn't turn out the way you want, you don't have to stay with the party.