Reviewism

[T !B.WpjkCAPk No.16993268]

Hey, I am trying to make an alternative to Conservatism and Progressivism. It’s called Reviewism!

It’s built on a scientific, socialist concept of reviewing things, looking at the impact of lifestyles and choices on both the individual and the individual’s respective community to determine the ethical, and thus legal, nature of something.

Reviewism, while capable of standing on its own, operates on several assumptions that are as follows:


> An individual, while shaped by both nature and nurture, is beholden to his community. A valuable individual must always aim to promote harmony and prosperity in his community, in order to enrich what the community can offer in return to others. A community’s health, it is observed by us, naturally feeds into numerous other factors that increase prosperity, harmony, cohesion, and happiness.

>An individual’s rights should only extend as far as the community can feasibly allow, without causing harm to itself in the process. An individual lacks rights, as the unlimited abuse of them would strain the community far too much. Modern society, while making such grandiose speeches and praises about the human rights enshrined in various state documents, rarely accommodates them when it's inconvenient to the majority. Reviewism acknowledges and appreciates the limited conforming to reality done here by the world’s present states, but instead intends to make human liberty the byproduct, not the operational constraint, of a functional community.

>The ethics of everything is determined by harm done to both the human and his community. Through the use of statistical analysis and psychometrics, the ultimate goal of Reviewism is to use verified truths to determine the ethics of everything.

>Reviewism, in requiring scientific studies related to communal and individual health to make or break the ethical justifications for actions, will force ethics committees and their accompanying researchers to reconvene periodically on previously covered issues, to modify and re-inspect their prior work, to ensure it up to date with the present material reality (human development, technological development.)

>Reviewism, in understanding that the health of a community is paramount in ensuring harmony and happiness for the most individuals possible, does not see wealth as a barrier or an enabler of the community’s health. A healthy community without wealth is still a healthy community, while a wealthy community without health is a declining community. Ensuring communal integrity is tantamount to the acquisition of wealth, on both the individual and institutional scale.

Any feedback would be appreciated!

[Anonymous No.16993280]

[T !B.WpjkCAPk No.16993299]

>>16993280
Well, you are on /lit/, so what else are you supposed to do here besides read

[Anonymous No.16993369]

>>16993268
>scientific, socialist concept of reviewing things
That's just what the modern nanny state does, with more science. No one was happy when the bitch ass beauraucrats from the EU banned menthol cigarettes and no one's going to subscribe to an ideology that would limit alcohol consumption. Get outta here ya pretentious doof

[Anonymous No.16993378]

>>16993268
So just regular liberalism but in lockean sense not rousseauian?

[Anonymous No.16993438]

>>16993369
You can't get menthols in the EU?

[Anonymous No.16993681]

>>16993268
I absolutely agree with the first two points, very well thought out and well phrased. However, I have strong reservations about the idea of committees of scientists making all ethical decisions, no matter how you set it up there will be forces who seek to sway how science defines "health" and "progress" for motives that are not for the sake of the community. Also, as far as the last point, I agree that wealth is far form the sole factor that goes into community health, but I disagree with the idea that it is not a barrier or enabler for health, I believe that wealth certainly does play a role in community health to a degree.

[Anonymous No.16993841]

>>16993268
>A valuable individual must always aim to promote harmony and prosperity in his community

Harmony and prosperity according to whom? You? Fuck off.

[T !B.WpjkCAPk No.16994004]

>>16993681
I suppose the best way to save definitions is to allow communities to vote on them, with maybe a 80% approval needed to pass the new definition on a word. I could see the utility in dictionaries being run like public spaces, to keep up with the times and avoid special interest groups from corrupting languages

[T !B.WpjkCAPk No.16994015]

>>16993841
It has more to do with just not being a dindu and being a friendly, contributing member to society in whatever way they can be. If that is really so oppressive to you, you probably wouldn’t do well in a Reviewist society

[T !B.WpjkCAPk No.16994025]

>>16994015
Dindu in the selfish, destructive asshole sense of the word

[Anonymous No.16994451]

>>16993369
>but alcoholics and nicotine addicts are gonna miss poisoning themselves!!

>>16993841
genuinely shocking that you get triggered by somebody asserting that you should be a good person.

>>16994004
That dictionary thing is not a bad idea, but I am skeptical of how motivated people without a special interest would be to vote either so often or on so many issues depending on how it was set up.

[Anonymous No.16994529]

This is so gay after reading it I hired a very large African male to butt fuck be. His enormous African penis is punching my prostate as I type this. Prostate milk is gushing out of my semi erect penis with every pump. He has told me he has AIDS. The orgasms are so good I welcome the battle scar. My life is how in service of draining enormous African penises. I will move to the Congo this afternoon with the blessing of my Rabbi. I am become coom destoyer of worlds.