Risky Policy Management - Exclusive Rights Governance

[The Voice of Time]

I had an idea while I was taking a walk: a lot of the things we do not allow in most developed societies today are argued to be sort of risky policies in that they are likely to produce psychologically-, socially- or even physically weakened or partially to fully destroyed people, that is, they pose unacceptably high risks to the population of deteriorated health or life quality in general.

This is far from always the case though, and in each case there should likely be situations or people who are capable enough in their business to pursue the allowances of the would-be policy without falling into the wrong traps or pose any more risk than one'll find elsewhere in society or only a very weakly greater one.

Also, if one would stretch out the may possible paths a person might take in their life, one would likely also find that for some people, taking that risk will strengthen them and not weaken them, even if something where to happen of negative sorts as a cause of it.

I therefore propose a kind of limited policy-allowance, something for which is indirectly already practised (usually like you have to pass a course or be member of something to be allowed to use a facility and you might need right equipment and/or right licences). "Clubs of Exclusivity", managed under the leadership of a "Master Supervisor of Policy" (one for each club) serving directly under any given ministerial department. The Clubs keeps member charts and manages who of the members has what rights to what extent in practising some kind of activity or acquiring some kind of good.

The Clubs supervise the supply chains of goods and all people involved (doesn't necessarily have to be any good involved though), and the member chart is incremental starting with 0 members and all people who wants to join must first join the Club (which they can be denied if they pose a risk to themselves or others) and follow regulations (under which they can easily be thrown out of the organization if they don't, depending on severity they may or may not be denied back in). All members can actively engage in improving the framework by which the clubs work by, and they have a right to seek out dialogue with the Master Supervisor (given hers/his timetable allows it) and the Master Supervisor is all-powerful in hers/his ability to make demands of the club and manage it in detail if she/he desires to. The Master Supervisors are only answerable to the Head of Master Supervisors and the ministerial chiefs (where the Head only exists if there are enough clubs; too few clubs don't make it economically viable and the supervision of the supervisors would fall directly to the ministerial chiefs).

Done professionally this could solve a lot of problems with the question of legalization or banning of different activities or goods. Depending on the severity of each activity or good the founding of each club may require extensive research and professional as well as public debate about what restrictions should be in place and why, as well as how the club should be managed internally and why. Each club may need to create and maintain their own specialized crews or cooperate with other organizations and specialists in society to extend their ability to make good and fair decisions as well as figure out how to actively improve themselves. Members have the right to question professionals operating within or for the club and seek changes to the clubs management and internal policies.

[bobevenson]

That seems like an extremely complex way to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. Can you give a couple of examples of the activities you're talking about? Whatever it is I want to do, why should I join some club that will restrict or regulate me? People join clubs to interact with others who have the same interests. What you're proposing sounds like something an oppressive government would come up with.

[The Voice of Time]

That seems like an extremely complex way to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. Can you give a couple of examples of the activities you're talking about? Whatever it is I want to do, why should I join some club that will restrict or regulate me? People join clubs to interact with others who have the same interests. What you're proposing sounds like something an oppressive government would come up with.

Nothing more oppressive than standard governance, Bob In fact, getting your driving license is probably more "oppressive", especially in countries like Norway where it is very expensive.

I'm talking about anything from smoking weed, using guns or jumping off planes (with parachutes of course). The word "activity" gives it, it means any kind of activity that is proven to be highly risky and might be excessively regulated otherwise (like costing a lot of money, which might lead to class-restriction: that only wealthy people can use it, even though that's only because of the restrictions) or completely banned.

An important aspect of it is also that it leads to a more direct contact with government instead of organizations founded by consumers themselves which might or might not lack political influence because of a lack of direct contact with government, and the lack therefore of an appeal to an authority for necessary changes to policy management.

[bobevenson]

That seems like an extremely complex way to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. Can you give a couple of examples of the activities you're talking about? Whatever it is I want to do, why should I join some club that will restrict or regulate me? People join clubs to interact with others who have the same interests. What you're proposing sounds like something an oppressive government would come up with.

Nothing more oppressive than standard governance, Bob In fact, getting your driving license is probably more "oppressive", especially in countries like Norway where it is very expensive.

I'm talking about anything from smoking weed, using guns or jumping off planes (with parachutes of course). The word "activity" gives it, it means any kind of activity that is proven to be highly risky and might be excessively regulated otherwise (like costing a lot of money, which might lead to class-restriction: that only wealthy people can use it, even though that's only because of the restrictions) or completely banned.

An important aspect of it is also that it leads to a more direct contact with government instead of organizations founded by consumers themselves which might or might not lack political influence because of a lack of direct contact with government, and the lack therefore of an appeal to an authority for necessary changes to policy management.

Under Evensonomics, a driver's license, being a function of government control, doesn't cost the driver anything. Just because something is dangerous or unhealthy by somebody's definition is no reason for government interference of any kind. Anything else is government oppression, plain and simple.

[The Voice of Time]

just because something is dangerous or unhealthy by somebody's definition is no reason for government interference of any kind.

Most people do not share that view, me one of them.

[bobevenson]

just because something is dangerous or unhealthy by somebody's definition is no reason for government interference of any kind.

Most people do not share that view, me one of them.

That means you and those who share your view are no better than the most ruthless tyrant who ever lived.

[The Voice of Time]

Meh, ruthless tyranny is sooooo last century. That's why the oppressive US government is lagging so much behind: they haven't understood how modern tyranny works, we no longer kill our citizens (assassinations and death penalty) or send them to prison camps (Guantanamo and other military interrogation camps) or make surveillance on them. Modern tyranny is done in forcing people to better themselves and excel in their ordinary lives. It's really cruel modern style, isn't it? MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

[bobevenson]

Modern tyranny is done in forcing people to better themselves and excel in their ordinary lives.

It may be modern, but it's still tyranny, pure and simple.