Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

You mention an automatic advantage to the positively assessed. Who pays it and who decides how much?

That is one of the most important parts of the system I have proposed and I am very proud of inventing it. I will present democratic anarchy in a very simple sample. Let the people accept my idea and decide to give every man the right to evaluate other people every month. Let a positive evaluation give a total of one dollar (or whatever) to the evaluated person. And vice versa, let a negative evaluation take a total of one dollar (or whatever) from the evaluated person. The evaluation will be anonymous and money will be taken and added from the account of each evaluated man automatically. That right would make every man try to please every other man as much as they can and prevent every man from doing something other people do not like. This measure will affect every man, his neighbour, teacher, chief, co-worker, friend, and of course the government. Such a government will try very hard not to disappoint its people. Such a simple measure will bring huge benefits to society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Evaluation by spending money seems much better and efficient to me. No need for any complex super-social structures or computers.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You think the market is better? I believe it is not even as close to good as the evaluation. Contrary to the system I have proposed, the market does not give a stable production and therefore cannot produce a stable society. The system of evaluation is socially just because it gives an equal right to each man and market does not. Market does not have any influence in the human relationships out of purchasing commodities. For example, if your neighbour produces noise (this is a production too) at night the market cannot help you anyhow. These kinds of issues may be unlimited. Sometimes your boss may be a real jerk and the market cannot help you cheer him up. All these issues will be perfectly solved with the system of evaluation.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

Do not underestimate desire to take somebody higher down. I do not trust good intentions of individuals, but when millions of them considered, stupidity and malice is balanced out. Your system does not have such protection because it is unnatural, super-imposed.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Well I think that the system I have proposed is the most natural one ever created. The system will disalienate the society and that means the people will respect other people. Also, the work market will make all work positions equally desired. That will diminish a possibility and need of taking "somebody higher down" what ever it means to you. 

Yes, every knee-jerk will have the right to take one dollar from anyone which would not be a big deal. Those kinds of people would hardly unite to make a damage to society and would have to pay much more attention on their behaviour than on the misevaluations. A bad person may easily lose 100 dollars or more monthly. 

Let's say the president of a country makes a decision the people extremely do not like. He may receive monthly for example 1,000,000 negative evaluations from the people and as a result he would lose one million dollars monthly. Well, the big punishments and awards might be reduced by some kind of functions but anyway, the evaluations would make the president of a country really responsible to the people. A bad president in my system would run from his position so fast that no one would even remember he was the president. Something similar would happened to any professional, for example to a producer of socks. The producer will have to make socks consumers like. That will be a real responsibility. That will eliminate privileges. That will affect everyone everywhere and that will make a healthy society.

Cyrill Vatomsky wrote:

This is a horrible idea. It will ensure that nobody decent will ever get into politics. Only those that can afford loosing such amounts of money (because they will find ways to recover those losses) will. Such a system will open flood doors for corruption.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

It seems to me that you would like to stop the development of society and enforce authoritarian rules forever. There will not be any chance for corruption in the system I have proposed because there will not be privileged people. Managers and politicians will be pretty much exposed to the evaluation. Logic says that a non decent person will be more likely to avoid politics or managing of an economy and a decent one will try hard not to disappoint the people. And if that kind of evaluation would be unacceptable to the people we may change the evaluation with "plus minus one dollar" to the evaluation with "plus minus one cent". Now we have a reasonable beginning for somebody who is afraid of the evaluation. No more big harm would be made so let's see who is right and who is wrong.