Rule by consensus

Another reason that rule by consensus is often dismissed is that people think not everyone will ever agree on a given topic. BUT, the problem is often that not everyone understands the topic and all of its issues, or that the topic hasn't been broken down into small enough issues -- issues that have a REAL answer. Let's say the topic is ruling fairly. What does that mean? We need to break this down: what's fair in running a company? What's fair in a hospital? Who can talk that over and decide?

This is often dismissed with knee-jerk reactions as impossible or unrealistic. However, it is done EVERY DAY in communities that really care for the opinions of each individual participant. While someone disagrees with what we want to do TO THEM, it is simply disrespectful to do it anyway. This is NOT a fair, modern system, it's deciding that people don't matter, returning to selfishness, and doing what we want. It must end. When participants agree, they can act. If not, they should talk more.

I just realised this site is UK-only by default. How can I make this priority worldwide?

Can you clarify what changes you'd like to see? What instead of "rule by"? What "justification" did you have in mind?

Before this can go to the wiki, I think the wording needs to change. I support this motion, but I'd prefer to have a justification that consensus is what we are. In a leaderless movement, we need to have a strong system such as this very platform to decide on everything. It will eliminate bottlenecks, create effective small groups, speed up process, and increase transparency. Ultimately, we need this system to become the GA for Occupy Britain.