You cannot get people to cooperate with each other on their own, never going to happen.
Nothing is ever “on their own”.
I’m just saying cooperation doesn’t work without some form of coercion or compulsion.
It is typical for the Occidental culture, especially in these days, that thou shalt not found out who the ruler is. Preferably, the real ruler should not be more known than a variable in a functional equation of an infinitesimal calculus. This means that you have to do a certain mathematical homework before you can find out who the real ruler is. Since: Thou shalt not found out who the ruler is! 
Unfortunately, the Occidental society becomes more and more random (anarchic, chaotic, "entropical“) or, as you say, "insane and either gets overtaken or dies“, or it just gets "frozen“ (when there is e.g. no interest anymore in overtaking it).
JSS wrote
Everyone who is a natural born, adult citizen who is free, not imprisoned of this country only, can be chosen. Any who are chosen may decline the responsibility to participate and serve, however they may be chosen again at some point in their future.
First, our government is a social authority?
Second, that insanity would be inescapable whether the insane choose to run or are asked to, they still fill most seats of our governments but at least this way there is no built-in deception by the participants aka candidates/elected and way less corruption for there wouldn’t be any party affiliations, no long term corporate buyouts by lobbyists, but every man or woman for himself for a two-four year term and they are recycled to be randomly chosen for the next higher up echelon of local, state, or national government. A government run on the fly as needed, long term projects would have to be continued by the newbies who entered the governing arena, in this way they could be reevaluated and improved before completed. I know…I’m being too positive. 
If terms of service are staggered by years then there would always be a few more knowledgeable to help the newbies transition.
People who publicly choose to run for government are the worst of the worst these days. We need a new modus operandi.
Also, I like when citizens vote on bills. So the major bills would have to be streamlined without hundreds of pages of last, minute add-ons. Ten sentences describe the bill…and bam…done. Yea or nay people? People could vote via any interactive technology on a government agenda/happenings website.
Let me put it this way:
For sake of governing people, you are given only the following choice to make:
A) Maintain only that you are to always allow the combined wisdom of the entire world to make any serious decision.
B) Presume one particular method (other than A above) to always be the best for every decision.
Which would you choose? Is democracy ALWAYS the best thing to do? Is Socialism, Communism, Kings, Religion? How do you know what is wisest at any given time? SAM Co-ops merely insist that one earnestly listen to the wisdom of all, before making decisions about governing others. How can you beat that?
Too many people now associate the word “Corporation” with malevolent money grubbing entities. SAM has nothing to do with money grubbing, so I changed to “Co-operative” or “Co-op”.
The fundamental construct of the SAM Co-op is the CRH - Constitution for Rational Harmony:
It is far more effective than living alone or with merely a partner simply because it offers an immediate “circle of close-nit friends” as well as a global network of strategies and information (the Angel Network). It is like having a doctor, lawyer, accountant, philosopher, and neurologist all in the family and dedicated to the “family”.
All individuals have different conflicting self serving interests therefore common mutual interests for everybody equally is a lie or delusional thinking at its finest.
Who said anything about “common mutual interests for everybody equally”?
There is no such thing as “equal” except in mathematics. There are definitely “common mutual interests” among small groups, else there would be no small groups. SAM is merely a means to bring sanity and learning into the picture.
With a SAM Co-op, everyone is always an active member, but not necessarily an officer?
How is corruption avoided in a SAM scenario?
Isn’t 50 ppl. about 25 too many?
I still don’t understand how it would be set up, with self or group nominations and elections?
True. And they can switch around. It remains up to them.
Primarily because everything is “open-source”. The reasoning for doing anything and everything is not only formally stated, but required to be upheld as stated. No matter what you are doing, the reason for it must be satisfied. Vague ambiguity of purpose or intent is strongly avoided (verification of satisfaction is usually required). And then on top of that, everything is always open for deeper inquiry to investigate better reasoning. Usually the initial reasoning for doing anything isn’t the best reasoning and often isn’t the best plan, so in light of new ideas or information, change is but one formal discussion away. A single person in a single day can potentially change the entire game … other than the SAM Constitution.
For some, but not others. A SAM Co-op only requires 4 members to initiate the fundamental structure, after that, it is a matter of maintaining representation, awareness, and resources. Just as parts of your body would atrophy if the nerves and blood become too restricted, if a group grows too large, people become too unattached to what is really going on and why. Purpose in living gets confused and conflated when people are not involved in the reasoning or not properly represented. How attached do you feel to Congress?
Initially it is by whatever reasoning the initial members can muster up. It doesn’t really matter why or even how stupid they might be. After the structure is formed decisions begin taking on rationality and who moves into what position is up to that rationale. And of course, what rationale is first chosen is seldom the best, so later it can all change again … but always via the congressional/parliamentary procedure of open debate.
Since MIJOT, Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time, is the “supreme goal”, all reasoning is based upon that concern. And any reasoning that proves to be better at achieving that goal gets immediately implemented. Voting or even your “random assignments” can be a part of the better reasoning concerning many issues, as long as the highest authority remains as the SAM structure. In other words, voting or random assignments can only be implimented as long as the proper reasoning proved them to be the better way to handle the specific situation.
Between the required open-source reasoning and the goal of MIJOT, the group becomes very stable. The only issue is that new comers come from such an extremely different society, they can’t quite comprehend it for a while. Once accustom to it, it is almost too easy. People expect problems that never arise; (e.g. “Don’t I have to campaign or gather a petition?” - Not at all).
Without equality mutuality is a lie. There is cooperation where people have the same goals or aspirations working together but there is no sense thing as mutual benefit because nobody benefits from anything in the same manner. Cooperation can be voluntary but usually it is coerced.
?? That doesn’t seem to make sense. On a hot day, a man and his dog find a supply of water. The need and refreshment are “mutual”, yet they are hardly equal.
But they benefit differently, it’s one of the biggest pet peeves I have with the word mutual.
Such might have been inferred by someone, but “mutual benefit” has never meant “benefit equally”. It merely means that both parties benefit, perhaps in different ways, perhaps different amounts (in exact measure, always different amounts).
On its face, this is feasible. But there is a downside to benefit, and if the above implication is to be considered, (a few comments ago), then after the 50-50 split is passed, one will benefit more, while the other less; or, its losses will exceed the benefits. At that point ‘it’ will try to cut losses and withdraw. Generally speaking, this makes sense.
But this does not make too much sense to those of democratic leanings.
- What “50-50 split”?
- I am talking about the bottom line benefit, not merely half of the picture.
- “You got more than me so I’m not going to play anymore” is a bit childish. Let him sit out to grow up.
Yes, and it is because of the support of the almost unknown real rulers having nothing to do with democracy.
Voting is only good for a small group - up to tribes (at the most!).
For example: The Ancient German or the Ancient Gallican tribes voted just because of the same interests they had as a small group. If the number of each of their tribes had not been as small as it had been, then the most votings would not work well or only work in the case of a same interest of something like a nation. Examples are (1) the unseccessful of almost all Gallican tribes under Vercingetorix against the Romans in the year 58 BC and (2) the successful war of almost all German tribes under Arminius against the Romans in the year 9. Almost all of those tribes were united for a relatively short time because they had a common interest, but the tribes - and thus: not the nation - had decided this by voting. If they had already been a real nation, then they would have decided like the current nations do today: according to the corruption.
But where do we have such tribes today? There are not really such tribes anymore (and "gangs“ are no tribes in the traditional sense). That is the problem too, namely of the whole world of today.
I don’t understand how corrupt leaders would be weeded out before any damage is incurred. Also, everything up for debate must be sited in written form first (following a standard of reason with evidence/proof)? Who decides what standard is approved? I guess I’m still not understanding this and how it would work with very small groups (of 4 ppl.) and very large groups (of 50 ppl.)? Are these co-ops made up of a few families in your mind?
If you start with “corrupt leaders”, no doubt a little “damage” would occur before it got corrected. That depends on how alert members in the group happen to be. Corruption depends upon deception and ignorance. Since everything is being documented and verified, it is tough to maintain deception. In the long run, it isn’t worth the effort. But even if you are the Hitler type and gain total control over the governance … of all 50 people? Big deal. Then what? The mafia and city governments do far worse.
All reasoning is fundamentally based upon logic. But logic can easily allow for other forms of reasoning to take over in special circumstances. “What shall we have for dinner?” - Logic isn’t likely to help much other than to suggest another means for making the decision, perhaps a diet plan, a vote, or round robin. Logic dictates whether the Constitution is being upheld, beyond that, anything goes.
Think of it in terms of a small business. You have different people in charge of different necessary tasks; marketing, Accounting, Engineering, Production,… But unlike small businesses, members get to see why and how everyone is doing what they are doing. The accountant can’t hide the profits from the members nor the resource and asset values. And this particular type of “business” is concerned with the entirety of life’s issues, not merely selling goods or services for money. Often in small towns, small businesses are very similar in that regard because everyone is considered “family” and often in need of cooperation.
And yes, I would expect several biological families to be involved in forming a particular SAM family. What rules they choose to enforce beyond the constitution is entirely up to them. So they might choose to be all female or all male or whatever - different strokes…
The SAM Constitution is merely a framework to maintain while pursuing whatever else is of interest. It merely ensures that the basic concerns of living are established and maintained (including “purpose”). It is much like every car having the basics; a steering wheel, windshield, brakes, and so on. Where and how you drive the car is up to you (or until the AI cars are mandatory and dictate your options).