Adrian Parker wrote:

There's something about the "evaluation" process I don't understand... is it basically that every person would have the right to periodically (say, once a month) transfer a fixed amount of money (say, one dollar) from any one person of the society to another, excluding himself? If I am correct so far, wouldn't everyone under this system merely transfer money from people they don't know (i.e. public figures) to people they do know (i.e. their families and friends)? What would stop people from ganging up against each other in a mad effort to vote themselves as much money as they can?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

You may exchange a positive evaluation with your wife and earn let's say five dollars which would be, for example, the total power of evaluation. I believe you would agree with me that is not a big deal. You may find more appropriate to award somebody with that money who, in your opinion, deserves it. On the other hand, making agreements with somebody not to exchange bad evaluations does not make sense because you would never know who gives the evaluation to you. 

If you receive 100 negative evaluations that will tell you that you are doing something significantly wrong to other people. Also you would have to pay, for example, 100 dollars for receiving those bad evaluations and that will force you to change your behaviour and satisfy other people. On the other hand, an award with such money would confirm your positive orientation and bring benefits. Average people would probably not get any evaluation in most cases, only significantly positive and negative people will. The implementation of such a simple system would in a short period of time bring huge benefits to society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

You are discounting the tendency of humans to stick together. If an extended family of about 20 members chooses to pool their evaluation powers, that means they can take $100 away from anyone each month (assuming $5 month).

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

A non-ethical person will certainly make a lot of mistakes so that he would receive negative evaluations from other individuals and that would force him to learn ethical behaviour. Certainly, the evaluations will help the society reach greater benefits. However, in order to eliminate any suspicion of society towards the evaluation we may try it for example with awards and punishments with only one cent or even without any money charge to show people how it works. I am positive it will be a huge contribution to the development of society.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Considering the problems I find it very understandable that no larger community wants to adopt this system until they've got hard data that it works. How about, instead of waiting for someone to try this system "somewhere in the world", doing it yourself? You said that 3 people is enough to make it work, then why not test it with your family at first? Or in a group of likeminded friends? How does that sound?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

The proposed system is supposed to completely replace the existing one. It is much simpler than the existing one but it is still very complex. It requires teams of experts and scientists to research and tune the system, and create numerous scenarios about all kinds of problems (including your complaints) before any implementation. I cannot do it alone.

After that, three people may start testing the system but the result will not be spectacular when only a few people are involved. Hundreds or thousands will show a much better result. Especially, it will be useless testing the system inside my family because we already solve our problems in the best possible way through discussions and we do not charge each other for anything.

Adrian Parker wrote:

This system seems to be a hindrance to the freedom of speech. A public figure is likely to get more evaluation than unknowns, and perhaps many people will rather not take the risk of getting enormous negative evaluation before writing an opinion to the local bulletin board, or publishing a book. Do you think Salman Rushdie would have dared to write his novels if he knew he'd be paying for it the rest of his life (when fundamentalists keep giving him negative evaluations)? Not to mention that in a smaller scale, everyone will hide all the negative feelings or opinions in fear of "looking bad", this would be a very superficial community.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Salman Rushdie would not dare to offend the Muslim religion in the name of free speech because the freedom of offence will not exist. In the system I have proposed he would pay a huge price.

We are that much in love with ourselves that we believe our way of living is the best possible in the whole world, which is certainly not true. Such an orientation, in fact, says more that we are very concerned about our way of living but cannot face it. We try to raise ourselves by attacking other ideologies and religions. But that does not work this way; it only increases antagonism and conflicts. The only right way in fighting battles with other ideologies lies in finding a better way of living for us ourselves. When we succeed, our inner satisfaction and harmony inside our society would certainly attract other people to join our values and the world would become a much better place to be. That is the only right way. My system tries to do exactly that. When we find a natural way of living all ideologies and religions would not be very important any more. We will simply live everything what is acceptable in them.

As long as people respect other people they do not need to hide anything and especially not how they "look like". The system of evaluation will be teaching people to respect others and that is one of the main preconditions to achieve a better future of society. Besides, the whole purpose of the system I have proposed is to overthrow a superficial community and to build a natural one.

Adrian Parker wrote:

Would you have been willing to publish your book and make this website if you knew that you might get several hundreds of dollars of penalties from people who don't like your ideas?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake just because he refused to recant his beliefs. The system I have proposed offers economic and political stability, optimal satisfaction of people's needs, absence of crisis, war or any kind of destruction. It offers love, peace, joy, and harmony to the people. Not one other system in the world has been serious in offering such things. On top of it all, no one will burn me at stake for it :-). I would certainly be persistent without matter of any possible bad evaluations I might receive from some people. I believe I would receive much more positive evaluations from the people who enjoy life in the new system.

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Aleksandar, Adrain Parker is right. People are of a herd mentality. People do stick together. Families, clans, whatever you want to call it. Even friends have formed fraternities over the years. Just how do you think cartels came about? Wasn't it packs of greedy individuals with the same sinister plan? That plan was not to give you an honest evaluation, but to try to shaft you out of anything they could. Even family member will team up and fight with other family members. Just watch when there is some monetary gain to be made from some deceased's last will and testament. Then watch all of those honest evaluations you are talking about. The same can hold true for promotions. Better refine this idea, it won't float. JRL

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Today we have a pretty much closed society. People do not have much choices and that is the reason they often stick together even when the issue is not ethical. The system I have proposed will eliminate privileges and that will bring freedom and unlimited choices to every individual. Nothing will be same as today. In the future, the people will also "stick together" but that would include only normal social interests. Others would have to respect their needs. But if the group starts acting non-ethically it will destroy itself. First, a non-ethical relation towards one member of society would result with his leaving the group and then a non-ethical evaluation will break up the group itself. The rest of the answer is already written in this thread here.

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Groups have stuck together that are not ethical. The federal reserve comes to mind. It has been operating since 1913, and has taken the American tax payer to the cleaners for all of these decades. Congress has the power to change this, but is in the pockets of the fed. Now you tell me how a group with so much power is going to destroy itself, before it destroys the wealth and livelihood of the American people? No sir, You are obviously forgetting to look at who has the power. Just the fact that the general populace is apathetic, keeps the nasty groups in power, and strengthens that power grip they have on us. Your theory about the ethical weeding out the bad, is just a dream in the real world. Not enough people will stand up for their rights, let alone other's rights. Try again Alek, but let's be realistic. JRL

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

I have described the group with so much power you are talking about here. It will be overthrown by a stronger, smarter, more productive and profitable group. I have defined it in Work competition, Democracy or Anarchy and in the whole book.