Welcome to – Cooperation Nation Station – Web Version

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise this control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” (Thomas Jefferson). The Cooperation Nation Station would like to thank you. We intend to construct an information web site designed for organizations of independent people who advocate to promote social responsibility within political, social, religious, and economic areas of local communities through the use of simple pragmatic, intellectual, and emotional standards of judgement that express personal, political, and community values. This sample site represents part of the idea and includes, the purpose of the site, the standards and goals of the Cooperation Nation Station, a rational for the information, the framework for the intellectual ideas behind the site, the beginnings of a philosophy database, and the beginnings of proactive advocacy database. Any and all contributions to the project on behalf of an organization are welcome but not yet tax deductible. If you are interested in supporting or making a contribution you may contact Cooperation Nation Station at returncc@gmail.com.

Message from the Cooperation Nation Station
The Cooperation Nation Station intends to help people who want to organize simple advocacy and provide those seeking self-help resources some educational material that increases communication and advocacy skills for the benefit of local or regional public government services or institutions who adhere to operational principles or policies that can be gauged by standards that incorporate simple acts of judgment that are universally agreeable to all persons who share autonomy and dignity of the person. The motivation of the articulation of these standards is an idealistic attempt to hasten the end of institutional behaviours that fail to adhere to standards of social responsibility and advocacy despite the presence of those who seek to provide the means of an independent standard of living in favour of family and community in democratic Countries. The Intention of this page site is to communicate ideas that engage creative thinking and personal initiative so as to achieve cooperation, learning, and agreements between people who support and promote ideas of social responsibility and advocacy as well as the

representation of community standards within political, social, religious, and economic spheres of influence.

The Cooperation Nation Station would like to build and
collect material that can be used to support, organize and help independent people who share a common interest in local, regional, national, and/or international community groups and adhere to standards on the basis that they promote advocacy, cooperation, learning, and agreements on behalf of the standards of peace, order and good government, accessible and accountable public institutions, the reduction of pollution, poverty, and prejudice, as well as a true legally agreed standard.

The Cooperation Nation Station is dedicated to grow a web
site project that secures first person ethical standards of respect in the form of independent thinking and material equality, to ensure the dignity of the person, liberty, equality, and minimum living conditions for persons within communities that already use and share standards of free-thinking and well-being to secure autonomy and dignity of the person in surrounding large or small urban or rural populations.

The Co-operation Nation Station would like to share and
publish information that supports respect for autonomy and dignity of the person to help others understand pragmatic, intellectual, and/or emotional contributions and preventions of other people that are used to organize standards of advocacy approved by all because they relate to projects that enhance public community standards of liberty, public law, environment, health, education, and communication.

Cooperation Nation Station – Standards and Intention
Standards and Goals The C.N.S. are politically and socially dedicated to, • • • Gather people together who support standards of respect for autonomy and dignity; Assemble information about self-government and local accountability; Advocate, support, and increase standards that reduce pollution, poverty, and prejudice;

• •

Share and publish information about local, regional, national, and international government services and supports; Communicate and improve access to political, social, religious, and economic public goods and services through the construction and direction of a cooperation web site project.

The C.N.S. site would like to support, organize, and help, • • • • • Local community groups and projects; Self-government and local accountability; Application and learning of anti-pollution, anti-poverty, and antiprejudice standards; Accessible formats for local government services and supports; Communications advocacy and the collection of web site content.

The C.N.S. help, understand, and talk, • • • • • • Liberty Public Law Health Education Environment Communication

The Cooperation Nation Station: “Responsible people joined together, who gather resources and teach through demonstration in order to begin planning a better future.” Whether you organize where you
work, live, or at places you socialize, or whether you dwell on interpersonal relationships or political discourse - a duty attaches to represent yourself well in the public arena through the adherence of doit-yourself principles that represent standards of respect and responsibility. Responsibility that is the source of legitimacy and the origin of the right of self-determination and the call for progress toward self-governance.

The Purpose of this site is to anticipate simple all-good institutional
standards of a consensus building project for those who advocate within public groups and to enhance cooperative thinking and being that aims for greater social realization of community potential and worth. This serves to improve the person who intends to support people who make a meaningful contribution to the lives of other people, to organize people who have the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the lives of

other people, and to help those who never had the chance to make a meaningful contribution to help the lives of other people. Under Construction as of November 2007… This site will be periodically updated. Search this site and decide whether you can afford a charitable donation to finance the construction of a web site that aims to share and publish information about your local, regional, national, and/or international groups that contribute to the political and social well-being of other people. The intention is to support pragmatic, intellectual, and/or emotional projects that enhance public community standards of anti-violence, anti-incompetency, anti-pollution, anti-poverty, anti-prejudice, and anti-false communication. You can make a difference, “To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived that is to have succeeded.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Bride of San Luis Rey) To arrange for a non-refundable Canadian taxable donation email: returncc@gmail.com

Reflection on Emancipation
As individuals we move and breath through life, acquiring and spending money in order to maintain our standard of living. Counting the total amount of money acquired and disposed of by a person during their lifetime might, at least theoretically, be an accurate reflection of their economic condition in the world. There are two broad categories of people in relation to economic conditions: Those who have minimum resources enough to cover their basic living expenses over a lifetime, and those who do not. From this perspective, who would disagree with the proposition that a person’s economic condition could be improved by a timely gift of money. Although other elements of life add value to our lives, such as the relationships we share and the understandings we create, bean counting quid pro quo might be relevant to the insights of emancipation. Economic emancipation can be imagined of as a project that relates to the ability of a person to acquire goods, services, and capital, or as a minimum standard provided to all of each thing.

Cooperation Nation Station Mission Statement – Summary of Standards
C.N.S. are dedicated to achieve political, and social standards of action. The term “standard” has different meanings in different contexts. In the present sense, I intend my use of the term to refer to the notion of “value.” As such, standards are intangible concepts that are grounded in the choice or consent of human beings. They are ordinarily expressed in the grammatical form of prescriptive statements that vary in degrees of generality or specificity. Standards are a product of the mind and as such they have no tangible or physical substance; they impact on the world only insofar as they are expressed and exist within the intentional behaviour of other people. In our daily lives, we use standards to judge the acceptability of past, present, or future behaviour and policies of organizations that conform to or are in breach of general or specific standards. We commonly appeal to a standard when confronted with questions of conduct that determine behaviours, we rarely question or explain precisely and clarify the grounds upon which these standards rest. Widely accepted standards have the ability to become shared conventions of a society, or an international or continental organization. The standards of the Cooperation Nation Station are one such example. Once we have accepted a standard or value, we can argue for the consistency or continuity of derivate standards, which I shall refer to as “principles.” Underlying these derivative constructions is an intention to be consistent in body and action with a presupposed standard. For example, in our society we commonly uphold the value of “equality” which subsequently manifests itself in various contexts such as, “equal under the law,” or “equal dignity of the person.” The role of the judiciary in our society is to apply standards and principles to factual disputes in the world, and as such, legal reasoning provides a solid model for decision making grounded in principles and standards.

The C.N.S. Mission Statement,
• The C.N.S. are dedicated to financing an organization that prioritizes work on the basis of applying simple, easy to understand values and standards. The C.N.S. advocate for public institutional purposes to conform to standards of respect for autonomy and dignity of the person and

support personal initiative and creative thinking in the delivery of open public government administration and services. • The C.N.S. members are dedicated to learn and listen from organizations and persons who enhance peace order and good government, accessible and accountable public institutions, and legal advocacy, as well as make a safe contribution to community standards of lowering pollution, poverty, and prejudice. The C.N.S. would like to facilitate liberty and material well-being for persons, organizations, and groups who adhere to standards of respect for autonomy and dignity of the person in daily, political, social, religious, or economic life. The C.N.S. are committed to support the basic minimum standard of respect for autonomy and dignity of the person, and understand conditions that address pragmatic, intellectual, and emotional contributions and preventions of other people within working democratic organizations. The C.N.S. would like to build a document database dedicated and committed to understanding historically significant forms of thinking that are directed toward identifying and changing systems of inequality within our local communities on the basis of discrimination due to age, gender, race, class, physical or mental disability. The C.N.S. would like to support public action that achieves respect for sustainable dwelling conditions within our environment as well as responsible waste management, collection, disposal, and recycling. The C.N.S. would like to assemble information that supports access to local, regional, national, and international government and public law resources and supports. The C.N.S. are dedicated and committed growing a community of independent people who share a common interest in local community improvement and support through the construction of a web site project.

Cooperation Nation Station: Standard Rationale

Participation and Self-Government
Prologue
From a young age my generation has witnessed the consistent and persistent degradation of our global environment with the potential for a permanent environmental catastrophe. Whether it be acid rain in the 70’s, loss of the ozone layer in the 80’s, the smog belt of the 90’s, or our current polar ice cap melt, the sensitive members of my generation have grown accustom to nothing less than the apparent total and inevitable collapse of our global environment to support life as it has existed on this planet since the last ice age. As a result, the next generation is serious about issues of pollution, unlimited consumption, production and distribution. Such a generation is willing to accept a wider sense of social responsibility than has been the norm in the post-war “me” generation unable to halt the current destruction. For this generation, the political belief in unlimited growth and technical progress does not provide a warm feeling of security but rather a general distrust of language that does not disclose an accurate picture of the world. If such is the case, the average audience member is well advised to develop a critical distrust of language that fails to disclose an accurate or inclusive picture of the world. This new seriousness takes the shape of a willingness to know about changes occurring in our environment as a result of overpopulation and methods of mass production. The climate of the planet has changed dramatically during our lifetime and some scientists are predicting a six degree global increase in temperature from the last century into the next. In the words of social advocate Paulo Freire, we must “be prepared to condemn the fabrication of illusions in which the unprepared become trapped and the weak destroyed.” Goals of acceptable pollution and exclusive forms of private development that are worthy of sustainable public standards and avoid environmental degradation are necessary to see beyond the “necessary illusions” created by the social domination of the greedy, arrogant, violent and the well-organized that represent a significant portion of the current status quo and arguments that exclusively rely on market rules in a semi-democratic capitalist world system. I believe that a real ethic of respect for the dignity and autonomy of all people can best be realized in a public duty to organize responsibly around a communications, production and distribution network designed to address the well being of individuals and collectives. What follows is an attempt to envision an alternative to the current liberal manifestation of organization, a praxis that typically ignores and at times

promotes conditions of pollution, poverty, and prejudice and the loss of human potential that such entails.

The Need for a Standard
To paraphrase Martin Sheen from the television series The West Wing, the modern constitutional state is not a democracy but rather a republic. For most of us, our participation and authority over political decisions is generally limited to the election of people who govern us, rather than any participation in government. This paper attempts to extend common expectations relating to politics and education in favour of a particular construction of democratic self-government. Although many professionals argue that our current political organization and policies already satisfy the needs of the community, I disagree. The following educational thesis argues in favour of uniting people around a specific conception of ethics that promotes respect for the autonomy and dignity of all people and as such it stands in opposition to the claim that liberal democracies are impartial and ethically neutral. I advocate in favour of recognizing a public duty to create independent, open and formal communication networks within our political institutions designed to respond to individual and collective interests within our communities organized around simple to understand production and distribution standards that respect the autonomy and dignity of the person. I perceive the need to revisit the basis of our constitutional norms in light of the application of neo-liberal economic assumptions that have aligned governments with the exclusive interests of capital investment and private exploitation over public resources in a time of increasing global debt. As such this paper is an ethical challenge for public institutions to adopt policies that contradict traditional notions of representational democracy and exclusive economic dependence on private corporations without consideration of larger social interests and norms and the potential of our community. It is an argument in favour of creating and maintaining independent and inclusive public citizen organizations that advocate for six minimum advocacy standards that can design our local environment and aim to capture the greater potential for grassroots projects within our community.

Cooperation Nation Station – Standards of Organization

Standard Liberty
Peace, Order, and Good Government o C.N.S. are dedicated to respect free-thinking and dignity of the person; o C.N.S. are dedicated to limit and prevent public action on the basis of understanding standards of respect for autonomy and dignity of the person; o C.N.S. are committed to facilitate liberty and material equality for persons, organizations, and groups that adhere to standards of respect for autonomy and dignity within political, social, religious, or economic spheres of influence.

Standard Public Law
Accessible and Accountable Public Administration o C.N.S. are dedicated to promoting self-government and local accountability; o C.N.S. are committed to advocate for accountable and accessible public administration and institutional standards that demonstrate respect for autonomy and dignity of the person as concerns the reception and delivery of services offered by local, regional, national and/or international government services and supports; o C.N.S. are committed to assemble information that can be used to organize, and help independent people access local, regional, national, and/or international public or private resources and supports.

Standard Health
Anti-Poverty Philosophy o C.N.S. support helping others with health care, well-being, and advocate for accessible medical treatment if and when necessary. o C.N.S. are dedicated to enhancing basic minimum standards of political, personal, and/or community groups who make a pragmatic, intellectual, and/or emotional contribution to lives of other people and conform to standards of long-term respect for autonomy and dignity of the person.

o C.N.S. are dedicated to publish and share information about cooking, cleaning, exercise and rest for the person.

Standard Education
Anti-Prejudice Religion o C.N.S. are dedicated to assisting others in self-directed learning through the publication of information and necessary supports for an excellent education. o C.N.S. are committed to teach and understand historically significant forms of thinking that are directed toward identifying and changing systems of inequality within our local communities. o C.N.S. are committed to creative and resourceful ways to reduce the effects of discrimination for people experiencing prejudice because of age, colour, gender, class, or disability.

Standard Environment
Anti-Pollution Economics o C.N.S. are dedicated to inform and support the construction of better kinds of living space for everyone. o C.N.S. are dedicated to support the search for cost-effective models of alternative fuel and energy consumption within a sustainable and responsible resource management framework that reduces non-renewable energy consumption and waste. o C.N.S. advocate to reduce encroachment on natural habitats and support the protection of wilderness areas from development.

Standard Communication
Legal Ethics and Advocacy o C.N.S. are dedicated to communication standards of cooperation and agreement; o C.N.S. are committed to the construction of a web site project that supports the use of public community standards to enhance public action directed toward peace order and good government, accessible and accountable public institutions, legal advocacy, and/or the reduction of pollution, poverty, and/or prejudice within our community.

o C.N.S. advocate and support communication with clear and precise meaning that aims to reject false information, improve, and measure cooperation and agreement between equal and independent people.

Cooperation Nation Station Philosophy C.N.S. Primary Standards
Respect and the Person
Copyright: July 10, 2007. Original Document written Educational Purposes. Frameworks for a Standard Conservative, liberal, and democratic social purposes represent particular worldviews that differ mostly in their understanding of the “self” and the nature of our connection to others. Each perspective advocates for a different set of dominant institutional purposes, whether those purposes direct activity toward the promotion of market skills, autonomous individuals, or citizens capable of democratic transformation. In western society, social purposes have traditionally been articulated within a liberal democratic framework that claims to be guided by respect for liberty and equality. This paper attempts to construct a set of core ethical concepts capable of guiding individual and institutional action within our de facto legal and political system in the form of clearly articulated policy purposes derived from principles of respect. In the style of a moral entrepreneur, respect and the person challenges the reader to consider hastening the “end of violence” by implementing ethical community reasoning and standards in our daily relations and within public institutions that intervene and act in our community. In moral theory the standard is expressed as a distinction between limits that account or discount the preferences and/or interests of others. In behavioural terms, it is the difference characterized by an attitude of humility or emotional superiority. This principle is in effect a command to respect others on the basis of the belief that all people are of equal worth. August 22, 2002: (title) Ethics and

Equal Worth

Building on the work of Immanuel Kant, the proposition that all individuals are of “equal worth” ensures that each person deserves respect. What is “of worth” in each person deserving respect, according to Kant, is the recognition of universal human potential, rather than what a person may have made of it. Kant’s construction of “equal worth” includes a presumption in favour of the autonomy of each person insofar as they experience the laws of freedom within a liberal framework that supports individuality. The idea is that all human beings deserve respect due to their human potential, whether they actualize it or not. Many modern ideologies, ancient religions, and spiritual perspectives contain a similar foundation. Liberal ideology is not the only group to have created a system based on the idea of respect for the equal worth of people. The early writings of Eastern Hindu and Buddhist cultures contain spiritual perspectives relating to life and death, love and violence, and in particular ethical conceptions relating to relationships and action. Early Greek and Roman texts are concerned with articulating the foundations of ethical behaviour in laws that justify punishment and exile. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is primarily constructed around ethical imperatives within the context of a monotheistic “absolute” religion, while native American spiritualism also insists on equal claims of respect for all of creation. The main variation of the principle of respect within these various worldviews is the extent to which respect is granted to others. Some people limit recognition of equal worth to a particular in-group based on relations of kin, gender, race, class, or nation. Recently many have argued in favour of extending the principle to all living things, such as animals and biospheres, as a response to environmental deterioration. It is possible that acceptance of abstract respect for all people is the first psychological step toward developing a perspective of humility. It is also possible that to not respect a group of people makes one generally indifferent to the application of violence toward that excluded group. The principle of equal worth and a presumption in favour of autonomy can lead one to universal forms of self-limitation and allow for inclusion within non-violent environments and living spaces.

Respect for Potential
It is only in reference to the idea of “potential” that we gain further insight into the nature of persons or living spaces that accept the concept of “respect.” The concept of potential appears to be a consequence of our experience of the world, and in particular the experiences of growth and decay. We observe that physical conditions can limit or expand the growth or decay of living beings whose being

reflects the conditions that support it. The possibility of changing conditions generates our understanding of the concept of “potential.” Theory of the Self The idea of a “self” in the form of a body in space and time capable of perception and reflection discloses what I believe to be a minimal conception of the “self” that is relatively uncontroversial. Our bodies are located in a specific time and a specific place and we experience what is located within our environment. Such a conception relies on assumptions concerning space and time as well as assumptions concerning perception and reflection. There is however, controversy concerning an expanded view of the “self” that includes content relating to the non-physical attributes of the “self” and the nature of our personal and political relations with others. Such a debate is important because the content of an expanded conception of the “self” is capable of influencing many political and philosophical issues. Applied in a personal context, we are confronted with the knowledge that certain conditions in the world are better or worse in relation to our personal growth as well as the growth of others. If we decide to value our personal growth, physical or mental, then we are additionally confronted with the need to determine whether to value and respect the growth of others or not. A presumption in favour of personal autonomy would further assert that individuals are best situated to determine which conditions are desirable in relation to their own potential.

Autonomy and Dignity of the Person
If one chooses to adopt the ethical position that all people are of “equal worth” one is likely to consent to institutional policies that discourage trends of violence, such as discounting the interests of others, and encourage trends of respect for all people. If one intends to avoid contradiction with the proposition of equal worth then, toward this end, one must both respect “the autonomy of the person” and “the dignity of the person” in relation to other people. These two co-original secondary principles, constructed by inference from the principle of equal worth, give expression to the idea of respect for potential as applied within an existential framework recognizing both tangible and intangible being and nothingness, or a material/mental duality of mind and body.

In other words, to respect “the autonomy of others” requires addressing conditions for independent thinking, and dependencies of an intangible nature, while to respect “the dignity of others” requires addressing the actual material conditions or physical dependencies of people. The imperative to promote autonomy within a public or administrative context suggests to me, a duty to promote independent thinking and argumentation on issues relating to forms of pollution, poverty, and/or prejudice. At some point intervention is necessary due to the behaviour of others who encroach on the natural liberties of environmental health, personal physical care costs, or educational services, that over time serve to reduce freedom and autonomy rather than increase it. The imperative to promote dignity of the person within a public or administrative context suggests to me that ethical democratic institutions of a public or private nature have a duty to establish minimum housing conditions for people who are unable or incapable of providing themselves with basic material conditions in a sustainable and independent manner. Independently, to respect “the autonomy of others” is to be committed to ensuring conditions of independent thinking and to challenge ideas that would limit self-government or autonomy, while to respect “the dignity of others” requires that one address physical and material dependencies of the world in relation to each individual and take them seriously.

Cooperation Nation Station C.N.S. Primary Standards Standard Information C.N.S. Database: Philosophy
The ground of the matter herein purports to construct a favourable design for a new political organization, a new polity. This task happens to coincide with the definition of a pragmatic viewpoint, within the context of an absurdists understanding of the world, toward a philosophy and religion that will undertake to celebrate life and uncover and use old truths and values while setting to order our interpersonal conduct. The following philosophical inquiry is undertaken within a conceptual

framework that includes many theoretical assumptions. The articulation of these assumptions shall serve as the foundation for the political, social, religious, and economic theory.

Standard Database: Democracy and Freedom Democracy and Freedom
Copyright: July 10, 2007. Original Document written July 12, 1999: (title) Choice, Reality, Relationships.

Democracy and Freedom
A mental choice is an act of the will. At some time in our life, as a result of our interaction, we consider whether we intend to be responsible to others for our actions. It is almost unavoidable that as we grow older, confrontation will lead us to contemplate whether we ought to be responsible for our actions or not. I find it significant that without exception, each person inclined toward moral reflection will at some point dwell on this proposition, and possibly undertake to be responsible for their actions that pollute, make poor, or unfairly prejudice others. This solitary internal debate is an event of some importance. Error, calculation, mistake, intent, are all variables to help weigh the various elements of a decision. We learn to discriminate between situations and actions the results of which we do or do not intend to be responsible through forms of constructive confrontation. The nature of existence is that each person is self-legislating. Each person alone is the judge of their decisions. Autonomy is an aspect of our very existence. It is inherit in our nature, our existence implies it. Even the act of surrendering autonomy contemplate it. The alternative to making a decision is not to decide, have others decide for you, or submit to the command of another without making any attempt to determine whether it is good or wise in your opinion. The acceptance of responsibility implies decision making and actions on your own behalf. It is a source of legitimacy and the origin of the right of self-determination in the call for progress toward self-governance. If, it was determined, or confirmed through communication, that a person did intend to be responsible for most of their actions, the most reasonable thing to do would be to invite them to enter into a dialogue designed to improve our collective quality of life. The intended dialogue ought to propose a process of decision making, with the intention of addressing immediate and long-term issues of significance within local, regional, national, or international communities.

Choice, Realism, and Relationships
The divided loyalty of social being contained in the expression “being determines consciousness” demonstrates an understanding that everyone will see the world differently and act on the basis of understanding their “position.” In the context of change theory it is important to understand that everyone occupies a different position in the world. Each social position represents a separate vantage point and a unique perspective motivated by historical and daily living conditions. The various “positions” are linked to an experiential origin that may or may not bias an individual in favour of particular interests. The “worldview” that can be described is the sum total of a persons mental reproductions. It connotes a difference between a person’s perception of the world and the world itself. A worldview is the result of perception, position, and individual interpretation. It is the lens through which we view ongoing experience and theory of praxis. Of interest is the observation that worldviews of diverse people who occupy a similar position within an organization will tend to converge over time. Conflict presupposes a process of argumentation that accepts the standards of respect for autonomy and dignity of the person or rejects it. Democratic communities generally promote the resolution of conflict through the force of strategic communication rather than the acceptance of respect. Clear, open, and stable rules relating to the protection of free speech and the presence of debate within democratic institutions can support a system of argumentation which in turn must be capable of assessing evidence and providing reasons for public decisions.

C.N.S. Database: Internet
Standard Database: Permanence in the Digital Age
The use of language is such that the acts of information storage and retrieval as are found within your brain are mimic’d by technology and seen anew as writing and electronics. The internet is a permanent repository of information. This piece of technology has the potential to outlast the sun itself. Within its circuits a seemingly endless amount of space is built to last and could endure for basically a seemingly endless amount of time. It has the power to project a voice, instantly around the world, or almost permanently extend it, frozen in expression, into an indefinite future.

Permanence in the Digital Age
Copyright: July 10, 2007. Original Document written November 2, 1998: (title) Choice, Reality, Relationships.

Permanence in the Digital Age
Information is a By-Product of Language. In the beginning information was kept by people simply sitting around a campfire and talking about the things around them in the world. The beginning of what can be called an eternal conversation thus began over two hundred thousand years ago. This day we can contribute to posterity a permanent record of our thoughts on whatever topic we choose. The eternal conversation was made possible by the development of speech and memory and is witnessed by the Upandisha’s and Bhuddist texts written from memory. The conversation was expanded and extended when put on paper in print and media by Guttenburg et. al. Today we talk about the TV, and things that media suggest. The eternal conversation that began with memory and improved through media has now evolved into permanence in the digital age. Any record you make can be permanently stored at least until the end of our civilization, if not beyond. Whether you are speaking or listening, writing or reading, your participation in the digital age has the potential to transcend time. As such, it is a digital origin for an eternal conversation. We would need to establish a dialogue using clear and distinct ideas in order to debate the merit and principles relied on to settle conflicts. If we choose to participate in this dialogue, we are immediately confronted with certain ideas that are perceived to be relevant to the process of decision-making. Ideas such that, we ought to attempt to gain knowledge, reflect on our motives, predict outcomes, criticize principles, etc. We ought to ask everyone if they are actively engaged in a continuing process of reflection, investigation, and deliberations about how they ought to act or how we collectively ought to act, and if not, would they like to be. Freedom itself (the noun) is an idea, it does not exist in the world, it is composed of nothing and therefore indestructible, it appears to our minds anytime everywhere a body is being moved by a mind. Freedom demonstrates its sphere of influence in determinations of the mind. These decisions force us to become aware of ourselves and leave an indelible footprint on space and time, a mark from which our generation or the next generation can reconstruct our history, and write our story for future generations. If the information has any currency, any lasting legacy for our generation will only be the result of direct personal choices.

Over an infinitely long time, everything around you, everything you see, will disappear back into the illusion of shifting impermanence that is our experience. The only thing that won’t change will be the choice that you make. Every time you make a choice, you ‘literally’ have impacted on the world and the people in it, you have changed it forever. The choice made, is the only fact that will remain in the distant dusty future, good or bad, right or wrong. These choices will remain in perpetuity in place of your name, witnessed by God, recorded by man. These choices will be facts, constant and unchangeable; completely the opposite of our perpetual Sansgara experience of consistent change over time. Undertake to be responsible for a decision on a daily, weekly, or a one-time basis and achieve agreement and cooperation from others depending on your relationships with other people.

Cooperation Nation Station Database C.N.S. Theory and Policy Database: Advocacy
The Cooperation Station Nation would like to create a database of pages that succinctly express as many relevant ideas as possible that link to standards of judgement for advocates in political, social, religious, or economic groups and post them on this site. The idea is to collect and support the availability of articles like the following on Institutional Advocacy. The following rework is original and a conventional document that explains two different approaches toward policy change for advocates.

Standard Database: Model for Policy Standards Model for Policy Standards
Copyright: July 10, 2007. Original Document written December 5, 2002: (title) Models for Policy Standards: The Experience of Harrisement.

Model for Policy Standards
The Experience of Harrisment. The advocacy approach is modeled on a blend of two theorist whose source publication is referenced. The first article is titled “Backward Mapping”1 and was written by Richard Elmore in 1977. In this article, Elmore distinguishes between two implementation models and their intended and actual effects. The two models are “Forward Mapping” and “Backward Mapping.”

“Forward mapping” is similar to conventional policy implementation. It begins with an objective, then sets out specific steps to achieve that objective, and it then lists intended outcomes, against which its success or failure is measured. “Backward mapping,” is the opposite of forward mapping, and it challenges the assumption that policymakers ought to, or do, control policy implementation. Elmore argues that one must understand the reciprocal nature of authority relations in order to capitalize on delegated discretion. This understanding relies on a formal top-down and an informal bottom-up dichotomy used to identify the best institutional actor to make a timely decision. For example, responsibilities that require special expertise and proximity to a problem are delegated to those with those attributes, while more generalized responsibilities are left for the top. Elmore points out that research acknowledges reciprocity between actors control available to top level domains adaptive advantages of discretion, and the in the bargaining process. supports a framework that in organizations, the lack of in complex institutions, the consideration of local interests

Within this context, Elmore relates the process of policy implementation he describes as “Backward Mapping.” This process begins by describing the behaviour that has generated a need for the policy at the local level. The next step is to describe the organizational operations that can be expected to affect that behaviour, (i.e. institutional objectives), and then describe the expected effect of those operations, (i.e. a list of intended outcomes). After selecting behaviour as a target, the idea is to search the various levels of institutional structures to identify direct institutional interventions and the accompanying resources required, if any, to implement the change. Elmore emphasizes that the crucial difference between the two mapping models is that forward mapping relies on formal devices of command and control that centralize authority while backward mapping relies on informal devices of delegation and discretion to disperse authority. This distinction is important to recognize because the two methodologies are quietly identical, except that backward mapping is more explicit in its requirements of policymakers. In general, backward mapping tries to isolate the one or two critical points in an organization with proximity to the problem and then attempts to describe what needs to happen at those points to solve the problem. The second article written in 1987 by Milbrey McLaughlin is titled “Learning From Experience.”2 In this article, McLaughlin sets for herself

the task of encouraging a “third generation” of implementation analysts designed to improve effective implementation of policies by uncovering the connections between policymakers and the individual implementers. Both Elmore and McLaughlin are working from the same basic set of research studies, insights, and perspectives. In “Learning from Experience,” McLaughlin pinpoints the current state of implementation research by revealing that policy-directed change is a problem of the smallest unit. In other words, policymakers and researchers ought to know what matters to the individual implementers and incorporate this knowledge into the design of the policy if they want to be effective. McLaughlin’s assessment of policy implementation research reveals that individual implementers have opinions and beliefs that ought to be dealt with in a policy system. In her article, she summarizes policy implementation research and indicates that success depends on two things, local capacity and will. In other words, resources and individual incentives and/or beliefs. This research demonstrates, according to McLaughlin, that external policy features have a limited influence on outcomes and that effective implementation requires a combination of pressure and support from policy. Based on these research findings McLaughlin conceives of implementation as a process of bargaining and transformation. To negotiating with individual implementers is a way of taking into account their ability to influence policy outcomes. Like Elmore she acknowledges the need to intervene at the lowest level of the implementation system. That intervention, according to McLaughlin, ought to in the form of negotiation or bargaining with implementers. Only in this way can the ground for effective policy implementation be sustained in the long run. Implicit in McLaughlin’s analysis is the proposition that implementation is vulnerable to subversive opportunities by policymakers and local actors. Her advise is to bargain with proximate individuals based on an analysis designed to increase the effectiveness of implementation. For this reason, policy implementation that highlights individuals involved in the process rather than institutions and aims at marginal, incremental responses may make for a more effective and longlasting policy. McLaughlin’s research indicates that negotiated or feedback models take more time but they produce incremental and adaptive responses more beneficial in the long run. As she puts it, policymakers must move away from “a positivistic model to a model of social learning

and policy analysis that stresses reflection and assistance to on-going decision-making.” This requires the integration of micro and macro levels of analysis. The end result is a self-conscious process, that is multistaged, developmental, and iterative. The process requires keying questions and methodologies to the point in the process under study, to the needs of key decision-makers, and establishing a regularized system of feedback to actors at all levels of the system. Advocacy of policy standards based on this research suggest a process wherein one identifies a target behaviour, creates institutional objectives, lists expected outcomes and then pinpoints the best institutional interventions and resources available to address issues in a direct and efficient manner. I would add that the idea is to pinpoint which institutional actors have proximity, expertise, and resources available to address the behaviour in a direct and efficient manner. Conclusion Both Elmore and McLaughlin see benefits in encouraging a new approach to policy implementation. Elmore states that delegated discretion leads to diversity in performance of the implementation process and that this diversity is an important source of knowledge about how to improve a system. McLaughlin repeats the same idea by saying that local responses generate data on a “vast natural experiment – combinations and permutations of practice that highlight niches for intervention and promising solutions,” data that should be exploited by researchers and policymakers to make wise decisions for the public good. Footnote #1: Elmore, R. (1977). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94(4), 601616. Footnote #2: McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9(2), 171-178.

Cooperation Nation Station Privacy Code
The C.N.S. Privacy Code
Scope and Application The C.N.S. Privacy Code is a voluntary code that represents a formal statement of principles and guidelines concerning the minimum protection that C.N.S. will provide to their users regarding the protection of personal information which the C.N.S. does not collect at this time but

may do so in the future when the site expands or is further upgraded. Consider this an opportunity to educate yourself about internet privacy and general disclosure information that is likely important for you to be aware of if you are a member of the Cooperation Nation Station. The Code applies to the management of personal information about a user in any form whether oral, electronic or written that is collected, used or disclosed by the members. This model is intended to help users become aware of our privacy code and policies. The Code consists of three principles that are closely related. C.N.S. undertakes to follow all three principles. The Three Privacy Principles Principle 1 - Accountability Principle 2 - Identifying purposes of personal information Principle 3 - Limits for using, disclosing and keeping personal information What is "Personally Identifying Information"? "Personally identifying information" is information that can be explicitly used to identify and/or contact you as an individual. This includes information like your real name, e-mail address, mailing address, phone number, credit card number, user’s name, age, gender, income, employment, credit information, billing records, and the like. consent - voluntary agreement with the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Consent can be expressed, implied, or provided through an authorized representative. Express consent can be given orally, electronically or in writing, but is always unequivocal and does not require any inference by the member seeking consent. Implied consent arises where consent may reasonably be inferred from the action or inaction of the user. Three Privacy Principles The following three principles seek to balance the application of information age technologies with the privacy concerns of users. 1. Accountability Members are responsible for personal information under their control.

Members are also responsible for any personal information transferred to third parties for processing on their behalf and should use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection. Members will designate one or more persons to be accountable for compliance with these principles. Members will identify internally the person, or persons to be accountable for compliance. Members will identify to users a method to contact such person or persons. Depending on the size of the organization, other individuals within the member may act on behalf of the designated person or take responsibility for the day-to-day collection and management of personal information. Members will establish necessary policies and procedures implement and comply with their own privacy codes, such as procedures for the collection, handling, storage and destruction of personal information, to train staff and to deal with complaints. 2. Identifying the purposes for collection of personal information Members will identify the purposes of collecting personal information, before or at the time the information is collected. Members may collect personal information for any specified purpose. Generally, members collect personal information for the following purposes: i) to establish and maintain responsible commercial relations with users and to provide ongoing service; ii) to understand user needs; iii) to develop, enhance, market or provide products and services; iv) to manage and develop the member's business and operations; v) to meet legal and regulatory requirements. Members will identify their purposes for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information electronically, in writing or orally, and in language that users can easily understand.

Members will not use or disclose personal information for any purpose beyond that for which it was originally collected without first identifying the new purpose and getting the user's consent. 3. Limits for using, disclosing, and keeping personal information Members will use or disclose personal information only for the purposes it was collected, unless a user gives consent or as required by law. A member may disclose personal information without consent when required to do so by law, e.g. subpoenas, search warrants, other court and government orders, or demands from other parties who have a legal right to personal information, or to protect the security and integrity of its network or system. In such circumstances, a member will protect the interests of its users by making sure that: i) orders or demands appear to comply with the laws under which they were issued; and ii) it discloses only the personal information that is legally required, and nothing more. A member may notify users that an order has been received, if the law allows it. Only a member's employees with a business need to know, or whose duties so require, should be granted access to users' personal information. Members will keep personal information only as long as necessary to fulfill the identified purposes. Depending on the circumstances, personal information used to make a decision about a user should be kept long enough to allow the user access to the information after the decision has been made. Members will keep reasonable controls, schedules and practices for information and records retention, and will destroy, erase or make anonymous within a reasonable period of time any personal information no longer needed for its identified purposes or for legal requirements.