Cooperation Nation Station

A web site that intends to offer advice to independent people who share a common interest in local community improvement.

Welcome to the Introduction

Cooperation Nation Station


           “Responsible people joined together, gathering resources to teach through demonstration and 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 speak in public and use principles of direct advocacy that do not fail to represent standards of respect and potential.


     Advocacy is essential for the protection, performance, and defence of our potential to control information within a group that seeks to achieve popular legitimacy and responsible authority as part of our individual quest to self-govern and collectively progress toward self-determination of conflict solving and cooperation groups within democratic national states.


Cooperation Nation Station July 2012 


     In service to those who anticipate a consensus building project that aims to organize advantages and plan benefits for people who make meaningful contributions to the lives of others, for people who have the potential to make meaningful contributions to the lives of others, and for people who have never had the chance to make meaningful contributions to the lives of others, the Cooperation Nation Station presents to you, for your understanding, a description of six pragmatic and timeless standards or conditions designed to respect the autonomy and dignity of persons who work toward cooperative manners of issue clarification and purpose independent self-government and the winning of public argumentation.


     The revelation of these common standards enable opportunities of persons who desire to participate in direct advocacy and popular argumentation within grassroots and/or public judgment forums because they are simple and easy to understand, establish clear boundaries of argumentation, and engage basic issues of value outcomes relevant to speaker meaning during debate, resource conflicts, or consensus failures within advocacy or political groups. These standards can be used to focus knowledge on concise and convincing bottom-line deliberation that consistently knows how to avoid error and omission, and can assemble weights of argumentation that are clear and precise in limitation and meaning. The standards represent ten years of concept-driven research labour and can be used to easily understand standards that pass or fail, true or false conditions that respect educational processes that do not fail to instruct others on the protection of public safety, family qualities, and personal securities, through the use of lawfully biased but criminally impartial universal knowledge of standards and conditions that respect basic minimum speaker meaning and intention for public test and media consumption.


     Collectively, they are presented as a vehicle for understanding the final cross division of blocking agreement that is represented in the moral behaviour of resentment that says "no" to popular government or bodies of public merit who may harm or fail to support, without excuse, the survival of family or group life without excuse. These standards are designed to advantage persons who intend to self-govern under universal forms of auto-self limitation without the use of valueless or empty moral insights that fail to respect the autonomy and dignity of others but participate in public or grassroots agency anyway on the basis of individual position and motivation of benefit. These concept divisions serve to establish timeless standards of limitation and can prevent argumentation from further generalizing references into greater or more useful timeless concepts. The concept divisions can comprehensively exhaust argumentation for persons who anticipate routine contestation and engage in drafting or public speaker responsibilities, insofar as everyone can collectively agree, under conditions of public observation, universally to protect each other from injury and review losses caused by public authority and/or lack of legitimacy. 


    The standards cannot replace independent thinking but they can motivate the repair of errors and ommissions. They are presented for your understanding within a framework of emotion that is set to be against something. They are divided into two sets of three divisions each, the standards are against-violence, against-incompetency, and against-false as well as against-poverty, against-prejudice and against-pollution. Every issue you may want to argue in public or forum and not lose legitimate popularity is contained within the concept of one of these six standards, or in other words, the six concepts exhaustively name all standards that do not fail to be against violence, incompetency, false talking as well as causation of poverty, prejudice, or pollution. Six standard references that public advocates cannot afford to lose within our public domain responding in good faith toward the call for intergenerational progress toward collective self-government, or lack thereof. There are no other public arguments capable of achieving unanimous consent not already organized within these subject domains polarized by these six mutually exclusive and exhaustive concept standards.


    The judgments govern over predictable forms of universal consent because the standards do not fail to protect safe, good, or necessary democratic practices, that at a minimum, visibly fail to observe these standards. If a person were to fail to observe one of these concepts within public domain bargaining of public institutional or grassroots organizations, counter advocacy or public argumentation could popularly exploit such a failure and avoid a fiasco associated with a lack of these six standards. People who engage in advocacy and self learning cannot fail to be on the winning team if they can identify opponent advocacy that fails to observe one or more of these standards narrowly framed within the general concept division. Participants who use these standards will be able to improve their argumentation by identifying popular common values that do not fail to be against social conditions that accept violence, incompetency, or false talking as well as causes and sources of poverty, prejudice, or pollution. These standards respect the mental autonomy and physical dignity of everyone or anyone at all times and do not fail to be universally agreeable insofar as they avoid harming others, without loss of legitimate advantage or authorized benefit.


     The Cooperation Nation Station asks for favouable recognition of this presentation of these standards in the hope of recieving charity to support the further demonstration of the value of knowing about the public use or application of these standards for the benefit of grassroot and/or public advocacy forums or other self-directed projects. This website attempts to raise awareness of these named standards as the first part of trying to stage the presentation of this material should anyone else be interested in standards capable to stop others from doing something, with reasons and minimum effort. I anticipate, easy future development of this work, to consolidate theoretical and historical use of these concepts and comprehension of their place within a shared social recognition of permanent, definitional concepts -- fixed in order -- capable to generate derivative features and applications or "mapping" or key standards for use within shared social organizations that perform change or charity for tolerable persons.  


     Established within the context of John Stuart Mill’s observation that the only legitimate form of government intervention is in the protection of our citizens, an equivalent modern formulation sets out the limit of public action: We must agree to defend each other from each other, or recast, we must agree to protect each other from each other, and provide the mechanism of self-government to produce a legitimate result.


These standards do not fail to support that cause.


     To support recognition of the claim of "keying" standard concepts, and to assist in the defeat of criticisms based on independent self-interested benefit and other criticisms of value relativity, the knowledge of concept divisions can be re-contextualized. The elements of standard division can be recast as elements of a democratic nation state or the need to protect liberty, public law, communication, health, education, and the environment. In other words, the key concept order provided in the example is a matching order concept with the previous concept map of against violence, incompetency, false, poverty, prejudice and pollution. The parallel concept order and division can be exhaustively understood as a source of timeless security value the result of invention and language meaning that has the potential to re-define group survival priorities, capable to command public use of centralized capital and other justifications of public work. The concept map and the claims to invent "locking concepts" are useful and easy to understand by anyone willing to support a review of conditions and standard that are lawfully bias against failure but criminally impartial toward success. The meaning of inventing or finding these standards through the process of concept division and moral deliberation should not be overlooked due to its plainness or familiar historical facticity. The search for an end to universal justification for public government and social legitimacy cannot be underestimated within the expectations of advanced society insofar as our collective social organization is governed by rational rule based authority that aims to accept moral truth and logical imperatives in the quest to universally converge on historical forms of principled social regulation.