Diversity vs Big Government

I awoke this morning wondering about the paradox of DIVERSITY & BIG Government. Below is my etymology online version of what diversity means:

source: ...
diversity (n.) mid-14c., "quality of being diverse," mostly in a neutral sense, from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) "difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness:" also "wickedness, perversity," from L. diversitatem (nom. diversitas) "contrariety, contradiction, disagreement;" also, as a secondary sense, "difference, diversity," from diversus "turned different ways" (in Late Latin "various"), pp. of divertere (see divert).

...

source: ...
And my visual thesaurus defines the meaning of corresponding adjective diverse as:many and different ; distinctly dissimilar or unlike...

...

BUT, Big Government by sheer numbers must treat all people as equals (**). And in fact and reality must pander to identity groups by factoring out the attributes of one group of people over another by e.g. race, gender, age, disability, rich, poor and the like. Sheer numbers creates a cookie cutter policy where attempts at diversity are tried.

(**) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

... A government so remote from the people can't do it's job & recognize diversity. A government so large that the people can't figure out what they are doing is remote. A one size fits all form of education or government bureaucracy is not doing it's job. Government action should originate at the lowest level versus the highest level to serve diversity or our differences. The lowest level is where true diversity can be recognized.

Comments

Mark de LA says

Hmmm..... I wonder if China, India & the Middle East have diversity problems? The latter area won't after Israel is expunged from the map, eh?

Seth says

source: Mark in the main topic
"A government so remote from the people can't do it's job & recognize diversity. A government so large that the people can't figure out what they are doing is remote. A one size fits all form of education or government bureaucracy is not doing it's job. Government action should originate at the lowest level versus the highest level to serve diversity or our differences. The lowest level is where true diversity can be recognized."

I am pretty much with you on that.

Every person can create. Groups create too. We choose which groups to relate to. Do we tend to want to relate to the largest group possible? ... or to the smallest? .... or each person chooses some group in-between the extremes. Thing is which group is the most powerful? ... which the most effective? ... and ... what is for me paramount ... to which group are we closest and can establish our own unique, effective and powerful relationship? Me, i do trend not to think of the federal government as something that i can effectively create within. So should we try to tear it down and make it even less effective? ... of that i am not so very sure.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 09:00:09 16336

Most powerful is not the best criteria. Our government is less effective & attempts to do too much & fails. Threefoldness is the answer creating an economy from the bottom up. Actual teachers regulating their own schools. Actual workers regulating their own work. Actual communities regulating the usage of land, Actual doctors & caregivers regulating health care, etc - NOT bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are rarely experts on what they regulate.
Not all Mexicans, women, disabled, men of faith etc. think alike! (ps. the govt thinks they do). You can extend the idea into many domains.

Seth says

Well i remain unconvinced that the federal government should have no hand in regulating situations that can become really bad. Like i said, the devil is in the details and in how effective and even handed it can be. I refuse to make the assumption that anything the federal government does, outside of defense, must be bad. That, for me, is a really bad over generalize assumption.

The other end of this ... is the part where the federal government actually creates something ... rather than prevent something. That end too must be considered ... and i believe considered separately. We need a smart grid. We need reliable bridges. We need to be able to recover from natural disasters. We need to develop new energy sources. We need to care for the sick. Are we to just assume that these large things will just naturally happen from the private sector operating on a survival of the fittest? I think not. That too is for me a really bad over generalized assumption.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 10:46:21 16336

Your assumption that it is governed by Survival of the Fittest is shit! I didn't over generalize, you did! Regulate at the lowest levels & you gain something besides despotism. There was & is charity. It was mostly given from faith-based organizations churches etc. How many hospitals have the names of religious churchs etc. I've been in at least 4 of them & was born in one. It is the feds who drive religion out of such enterprises & competes on an anti-religious agenda.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 10:05:40 16336

M 2012-12-10 09:46:06 16336

seth 2012-12-10 09:00:09 16336

Yeah, i'm pretty much with you on all of that. The devil is in the details, and making the federal government more effective for what it is naturally best at doing should be way up there in our priorities for getting things fixed.

Incidentally, and not importantly, but apparently you stopped reading half way through my paragraph and formed your response from just that partial fragment ... why do i know that ... well just because later in the paragraph i also implied that power was not the only or necessarily the best criteria.

About the only thing that the Federal Government is good at & should be is maintaining a military. If I didn't mention it it didn't matter much as a perspective to me. It's not personal.
There are regulators who are responsible for regulating the regulations which implement the laws written by congress. (Apparently from the latest show only 1/3 of the regulation-regulations are even written yet.) See John Stossel in his series NO THEY CAN'T - or his book on how the feds mess things up worse than the private sector:

(**)

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-10 10:40:24 16336

M 2012-12-10 10:37:31 16336

Obama had a czar of regulations - a regulator of regulators. His name was Cass Sunstein & had some very extreme ideas - this is just one (see the link for others):

source: ... “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

...

& another -:
Also in 2008, Sunstein authored a paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:

ban conspiracy theories outright
impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
engage in counter-speech to "discredit conspiracy theories and theorists"
hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help

I don't think he appreciated the diversity provided by free speech!

Mark de LA says

As an example a principle might be labor must never be used/traded as a commodity. That principle might transform unions from primarily a bargaining unit for higher & higher wages to guilds of professionals who determine how best to improve whatever trade or vocation they represent. Professions like medicine & health care can focus upon the quality & technology areas instead of what's in it for us & how can we protect ourselves from law-suits etc.

Get government out of the money business & locals involved in the banking area and you won't need politicians to corrupt the process of capital distribution.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 13:45:25 16336

source: Mark says
"As an example a principle might be labor must never be used/traded as a commodity. "

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that "principle" is so alien to modern American culture that is like thinking "when pigs can fly". As such, i personally find it useless to incorporate in my thoughts. A wise person told me never to let my head get too far ahead of my hands. I try to be a man of the times ... that's the way i like it. But, you have fun with that one if you like it.

I'm glad to expose that as a man of the times you think & believe that men's labor should be traded back & forth like slaves! You haven't graduated from the civil war!

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 11:43:31 16336

M 2012-12-10 10:55:53 16336

seth 2012-12-10 10:46:21 16336

Well, sorry, i cannot relate to that degree of emotional static and hostility when rationally considering courses of action.

Where there are centralized rules that are wisely chosen and even handily enforced, effective solutions to hard problems can happen. In the absence of those centralized rules, people, operating on their own profit motives, will frequently arrive at solutions that are every bit as good and many times better. But that is not always the case ... nor is it the case for everybody, everywhere. To "force" everything into local control just on principle is a brittle and over generalized way to think about this. That in itself is a bug and will break. I will continue to argue for a balanced and informed intelligent approach that does not rule out intelligent centralized control of some situations while leaving most others to local and private concerns. The trick is to grock when the local approach is not working and wisely apply the other. It is not likely that a good balance will emerge in the midst of hyped up propaganda.

Robin Hood & the Federal Government are mainly the people that do shit by force. Most of what you are saying really applies to your own government centered solutions repository-mind. Wasn't in my proposals. Evolution with good guiding principles works better than academics who want to try shit out on the public.

Seth says

M 2012-12-10 16:04:55 16336

seth 2012-12-10 13:45:25 16336

source: Mark says
"As an example a principle might be labor must never be used/traded as a commodity. "

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that "principle" is so alien to modern American culture that it is like thinking "when pigs can fly". As such, i personally find it useless to incorporate in my thoughts. A wise person told me never to let my head get too far ahead of my hands. I try to be a man of the times ... that's the way i like it. But, you have fun with that one if you like it.

I'm glad to expose that as a man of the times you think & believe that men's labor should be traded back & forth like slaves! You haven't graduated from the civil war!

Strange i said no such thing nor did i use the word "slaves" which does not apply to anything that i did say. Please try not to twist my words to things that feel cute to you to mock. Would you like for me to do that to you? If not, then you are breaking your own golden rule.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-10 17:07:02 16336

M 2012-12-10 16:04:55 16336

seth 2012-12-10 13:45:25 16336

source: Mark says
"As an example a principle might be labor must never be used/traded as a commodity. "

I'm glad to expose that as a man of the times you think & believe that men's labor should be traded back & forth like slaves! You haven't graduated from the civil war!

You have to be able to think outside the trance of being an Obamulist in order to see things you didn't say yourself - that's called extrapolation & bringing out the implications. To work until April 15th each year for the government (not voluntary, but forced) is slavery - slavery to the government. Serfs at the time of the King George III only had to pay 25% of their crops. To exchange one's time & labor for money devalues human self-worth because human time is both worthless & priceless; can't buy any more & can't really sell it for what it is worth. To survive & have to sell your labor & time to a corporation is corporate slavery. About the only time you can crawl out of the hole is working for yourself in your own company & producing something someone else wants.
Basically, if you can't grok this principle you are not worth discussing economics or social matters with.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-11 08:25:48 16336

source: Mark said above
You have to be able to think outside the trance of being an Obamulist in order to see things you didn't say yourself - that's called extrapolation & bringing out the implications.

... Well there are zillions of thing i didn't say ... but what i did say was not even in the polarity of being an Obamulist or a Obamaphobia. Your extrapolation to that is just your own Obama/anti-government rut.

This is what i did say ...

source: Seth said
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that "principle" is so alien to modern American culture that it is like thinking "when pigs can fly". As such, i personally find it useless to incorporate in my thoughts. A wise person told me never to let my head get too far ahead of my hands. I try to be a man of the times ... that's the way i like it. But, you have fun with that one if you like it.

... Which is to say that your so called "principle", "labor must never be used/traded as a commodity", is not going to fly in modern American ... it is way too foreign, it contradicts too many assumptions. Most people trade their labor for what then need for their life. You can't just wish that assumption away and expect that your thoughts will have any application in today's America. If you want to respond to that, it might make an interesting conversation.

Repeating your shit again just proves this discourse with you worthless. If you can't think outside of the rut & disaster that the Obamalackeys have brought forth in the last 4 years & the last century of ever creeping big government you will never get anything different. I will delete it if it shows up again.

FYI: ...

You may have noticed some economic difficulties across the country in recent years among family, friends, neighbors, colleagues. One sector is doing quite nicely, however, under Barack Hussein Obama.

In the 1,420 days since he took the oath of office, the federal government has daily hired on average 101 new employees. Every day. Seven days a week. All 202 weeks. That makes 143,000 more federal workers than when Obama talked forever on that cold day in January of 2009.

...

Come up with a principle on your own if you can!

Mark de LA says

False logic doesn't work any better than sneering.
What I articulated was a principle. Maybe you don't know what that kind of thing is, maybe you do.
The Declaration of Independence started out with some principles. In it's case the writers claimed them as self-evident.

16328: ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;

...

One could sneer at that & say it is absurd from many bitter points of view.
BUT,
What you can do IS take a principle & build test cases or instances of implementation which align with the principle. For example something based on barter of goods need not involve hourly wages. Guilds of workers in various trades & vocations could negotiate with each other for prices & distribution rather than against the capital establisment for wages. That might be a better price structure & market within the country than pure capitalism. As long as the means & the ends align to the same principle the projects should go forward.
I'm not arguing the details here just trying to find a principle which we both can agree on & hint at what to do with one when we get it.

Seth says

M 2012-12-11 13:48:04 16336

seth 2012-12-11 11:04:50 16336

source: mark above
What you can do IS take a principle & build test cases or instances of implementation which align with the principle. For example something based on barter of goods need not involve hourly wages. Guilds of workers in various trades & vocations could negotiate with each other for prices & distribution rather than against the capital establisment for wages. That might be a better price structure & market within the country than pure capitalism. As long as the means & the ends align to the same principle the projects should go forward.

That is all fine and good. We certainly can contemplate a utopia.

My question to you is: what value does that kind of thinking have to our current predicament?

The net value is that you don't end up with messes like the one we have now for government & unemployment when you define well the direction you want to go. Hope & change didn't work. The country descended to second place.
Wake up! Not a Utopia, but methodology like a PLAN, to go to a better place. Right now the only plan is to continue to pander & rob the rich. (Bread & circuses as far as the eye can see!).
Is this a plan for reducing the deficit & prevent cliff-diving?

We need leaders who can articulate a plan & vision not politicians who use demographics to grab power & spend to stay in power.
I know you are not much into plans from previous experience. Perhaps it would be good to examine the fear of failure syndrome you might possess. The corollary syndrome is the fear of drawing a clear line around a subject so that you can see it for what it is. Ponder that a bit, eh?

I didn't ask what the value was if it happened ... it would be great if it happened ... i will grand that. You have pointed at a destination, but not a plan to get there. My claim is that you don't get there from here. For me it's like saying, "Hey how kewl it would be to live on the moon and weigh 1/6 as much", ... but we know that in the near future we won't be living there ... so thinking about it as if it solved some current day problem is like thinking about how things would be if "pigs could fly".

For that to be useful to me, or anyone else, one needs a fairly detailed plan that could actually happen. The problem is the world is going in almost the opposite direction. Money is become more and more abstract. Corporations are trying to get their work done by paying people the least that they possibly can. The corporate bottom line and stock price is all that seems to matter in our world. I don't see how just declaring the value of our time priceless will be able to change the world.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-11 10:58:39 16336

source: mark above
False logic doesn't work any better than sneering.

If you think that is false logic, then you should study the truth table for logical implication and comprehend where it comes from.

Yours was SHIT. Nothing in the principle that labor not be exchanged for capital is inpossible but your fucking, ignorant, "if pigs could fly" is impossible.

Seth.truth = zero.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-11 11:04:50 16336

That is all fine and good. We certainly can contemplate a utopia.

My question to you is: what value does that kind of thinking have to our current predicament?

Mark de LA says

Seth (above): ... I didn't ask what the value was if it happened ... it would be great if it happened ... i will grand that. You have pointed at a destination, but not a plan to get there. My claim is that you don't get there from here. For me it's like saying, "Hey how kewl it would be to live on the moon and weigh 1/6 as much", ... but we know that in the near future we won't be living there ... so thinking about it as if it solved some current day problem is like thinking about how things would be if "pigs could fly".

For that to be useful to me, or anyone else, one needs a fairly detailed plan that could actually happen. The problem is the world is going in almost the opposite direction. Money is become more and more abstract. Corporations are trying to get their work done by paying people the least that they possibly can. The corporate bottom line and stock price is all that seems to matter in our world. I don't see how just declaring the value of our time priceless will be able to change the world.

... You can see what no plan has come up with (see bold). There is no IF in mine! The metaphor still is trash. What I have proposed is a principle like the principle of liberty. There are already lots of people in this & other countries who are doing things like "free cities" (Michael Strong) & some of the real world results in the book "Common Wealth" -

Common Wealth

For a Free, Equal, Mutual and Sustainable Society

Martin Large

ISBN: 978-1-903458-98-3, £15.00
234 × 156mm

Add this item to your shopping basket.

Rudolf Steiner did not describe the institutions but focused on the principles underneath what should grow the institutions like the seeds of the initiative. There are a lot of discussions of such things on the Facebook group Threefold Commonwealth as well if you want to get close to the details. It definitely will not be one of those things that a trillion $$$$ can be thrown at & all will magically come to pass. Above I pointed to the methodology being evolutionary from the bottom up.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-12 08:29:33 16336

seth 2012-12-12 08:08:33 16336

How do people who have nothing sustain their life, except by trading what they can do for food and shelter?

Vocation is a good idea. Treating labor as if it were just another product like Twinkies or a commodity like pork bellies is not a good idea. Labor unions are a prime example of the latter. A sustainable economy in a dynamic equilibrium will have the principle of division of labor (a many to many proposition for the making of goods by people) resemble a brotherhood & preserve the dignity of the participants, imho. The very poor may need charity until they can wean themselves through the brotherhood & contribute to the economic domain. Even the elderly in RS communities do work commensurate to their health & contribute wisdom & perspective.

When you trade something you are saying that they are of equal value & kind; that is the fundamental mistake with labor.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-12 08:20:33 16336

M 2012-12-12 08:18:37 16336

Let not the politics of the day nor the uses & abuses of our financial system become a Requiem for the Death of Imagination & the American Dream! - M.R.

***

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.”

(ofttimes attributed to Goethe)

Seth says

M 2012-12-12 08:29:33 16336

seth 2012-12-12 08:08:33 16336

How do people who have nothing sustain their life, except by trading what they can do for food and shelter?

Well i'm just trying to tease out what "your" principle, "labor must never be used/traded as a commodity", means. I get a drift from your last paragraph now that it may not mean that I cannot trade my labor. But, perhaps, that third parties cannot trade my labor. But i really do not know what it means or how society would work where labor is not traded.

You have used unions as a example of how labor is traded as a commodity. But unions do not trade labor, rather they negotiate the price of it. I know that unions are the right's villian ... and the left's darling. I sure hope that a threefoldness does not degenerate to an excuse to justify right-wing talking points.

Unfortunately, "brotherhood", to me is a very fluffy vague word that can be used by anyone, even a demagog, to mean just about anything. For "brotherhood" to mean anything to me in this context, it needs quite a bit more meet on its bones.

Incidentally, just waving to literature out of the plane of this dialogue, will not communicate to me in this context. I think what is needed is that these ideas, this gestalt, gets articulated all in one place ... and that it creates an image in one's mind that is compelling and practical. I don't think that it will survive, if it depends only on belief in anthroposophical principles. It needs to be clearly and compellingly communicated in just common knowledge. So far that has not happened.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-12-12 09:41:24 16336

M 2012-12-12 09:15:21 16336

M 2012-12-12 08:29:33 16336

seth 2012-12-12 08:08:33 16336

How do people who have nothing sustain their life, except by trading what they can do for food and shelter?

When you trade something you are saying that they are of equal value & kind; that is the fundamental mistake with labor.

I think that needs to be stated more accurately. I trade something when the value to me of what i give up, is equal or lower than the value to me of what i obtain. Why is that a fundamental mistake in the case of my labor?

It is of little difference to a labor negotiator whether the commodity he is selling is so many pork bellies or sop many workers. It is all about the price. Sheeple will not appreciate the difference. This is not red-blue it is human self respect at stake. You could say that large businesses & corporations treating their employees as numbers & cookie cutter workers is just as egregious. Anything that minimizes the individual or treats him as a slave is antithetical to the future.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-12 09:41:09 16336

If you are really interested in solutions you might want to read Steve Zaffron's

The Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life

via Amazon here. It does come in a Kindle edition for $9.87

The part that is intriguing is the chapter 1 - Transforming an Impossible Situation which you can read parts of via the sneak peek navigating thru the table of contents.

I met Steve at my first engagement with Landmark Education - he was quite intense.

The chapter talks about an example post apartheid in South Africa quite on topic.

Also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/threelawsofperformance

Seth says

M 2012-12-12 10:04:10 16336

seth 2012-12-12 09:41:24 16336

M 2012-12-12 09:15:21 16336

M 2012-12-12 08:29:33 16336

seth 2012-12-12 08:08:33 16336

How do people who have nothing sustain their life, except by trading what they can do for food and shelter?

When you trade something you are saying that they are of equal value & kind; that is the fundamental mistake with labor.

Well i certainly can subscribe to the principle that we should have a great respect for our time and the time of others. People say, time is money ... but it is not ... it is priceless.

Maybe that is what your principle is saying ... i'm not sure.

And i can certainly agree that treating employees as numbers & cookie cutter workers is egregious. Strangely enough that is exactly what unions are suppose to fight. So weakining unions in the persuit of having more respect for people's time, appears to me to be not just a little bit confusing.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-12 10:20:55 16336

Seth: ... Unfortunately, "brotherhood", to me is a very fluffy vague word that can be used by anyone, even a demagog, to mean just about anything. For "brotherhood" to mean anything to me in this context, it needs quite a bit more meet on its bones.

Incidentally, just waving to literature out of the plane of this dialogue, will not communicate to me in this context. I think what is needed is that these ideas, this gestalt, gets articulated all in one place ... and that it creates an image in one's mind that is compelling and practical. I don't think that it will survive, if it depends only on belief in anthroposophical principles. It needs to be clearly and compellingly communicated in just common knowledge. So far that has not happened.

... brotherhood is often substituted for fraternity & visa-versa. See 15300. I have been talking about these matters for years on fbi. I am getting tired of dealing with lazy minds & brainwashed sheeple. PJ2 had some measure of brotherhood in some of the clans. Common Logic wanted it but couldn't get a product out the door which was polished enough to risk advertizing dollars. You might say that brotherhood failed once developers quit developing & what's in it for me took over.

Seth says

M 2012-12-12 10:21:14 16336

M 2012-12-12 10:20:55 16336

Family, group, tribe, and country are perhaps essential elements of our society. The individual does not sustain himself alone. Beyond that, what additionally are you saying?

If what you refer to with the word "brotherhood" and "fraternity" cannot be articulated clearly in this context, then it is useless to talk to me about it. Waving a vague stuff off of the page to justify reasoning is an old trick to hide a lack of a foundation that can actually be articulated. The only effect of accusing me of laziness will have on me is to turn me off from your concerns here.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-12-12 09:42:25 16336

M 2012-12-12 09:41:09 16336

If you are really interested in solutions you might want to read Steve Zaffron's

The Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life

via Amazon here. It does come in a Kindle edition for $9.87

The part that is intriguing is the chapter 1 - Transforming an Impossible Situation which you can read parts of via the sneak peek navigating thru the table of contents.

I met Steve at my first engagement with Landmark Education - he was quite intense.

The chapter talks about an example post apartheid in South Africa quite on topic.

Also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/threelawsofperformance

....
Hmmm... one of the writers of this book discusses the fiscal cliff (NON)-negotiations for CNN.

source: ...

(CNN) -- Washington appears to be run by screenwriters, where the rule is to get as close to the cliff as possible. Drive off, if it won't be too unbelievable. Then -- like young James T. Kirk in the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek -- jump out as the car plunges to the bottom and climb your way back up. That's great Hollywood -- and perhaps the best-case scenario in Washington as lawmakers drive toward the fiscal cliff.

There's an upside too. If you watch the news closely, you'll see our Washington leaders making the classic mistakes that bad negotiators make. You'll see when they should be changing direction, doing B instead of A. And you'll be improving your own negotiation skills along the way.

...

Mark de LA says

Evolutionary rather than dictated by Harvard professors or other people who think they have all the answers like Marx & Stalin & Trotsky. That's why RS didn't leave behind any plans - just principles.
I got the principles thingy from LEC97 (via Zaffron et al) when LEC was reinvented. It was demonstrated in a world wide conference of ~ 2000 participants & stakeholders that a transformation from a personality based cult of Werner Erhard to a modern educational organization based on principles could be done.

Diversity vs Big Government

Tags

Comments

Common Wealth

For a Free, Equal, Mutual and Sustainable Society

The Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life

The Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life

See Also