Time for some action?
MG
goal.
Still we keep arguing..
Could we all stop for a while, and just all of us write shortly in this
thread (NO QOUTING, please!)
what we should do now?
Please just shortly also motivate your proposal.
I start:
1. We should try to define one or two voting systems/democracy
instruments/tools which we beleive should be investigated further.
2. The , hopefully, in concensus choosen internet based design should
be created "quick and dirty" for real tests.
3. In parallell, we should find the ultimate forums system,
collaboration tools and homepage and create that.
I propose that to start with, we should separate the 1 to 3 in separate
threads in order to keep only relevant arguments together with the main
purpose of the task (1 to 3).
My motivation is simply:
I have seen this before, a lot of discussion until people drops off.
Most for pure energy loss, some for being hurt emotionally.
And in the end, no action at all.
This time I want action! The world is wating for us to come out of the
closet..
If you have comments, just press "answer" below the post and it will be
easy to see that it is a comment to the posting. (No quoting
please...or at least very short ones with only one statement in)
echarp
Because the forum is only used, right now anyway, to promote and not to
compare or propose.
Anyway, have a look here at what is "Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy":http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/proxy.htm
Here is the introduction:
> It seems axiomatic that in a democracy, all citizens should have the opportunity to vote directly on the key decisions of the collective. However, when such public decisions reach a certain level of complexity, it becomes impractical for every citizen to become fully informed on every issue.
>
> In a traditional direct democracy system, every citizen has two options with respect to a given issue: vote or abstain. If most citizens do not take the time to become fully educated on the issues, but nearly all of them choose to vote, then public decisions are likely to be somewhat arbitrary, and easily manipulable by public relations campaigns. If most citizens do not take the time to be fully educated on the issues, and many of them do not vote, then the system may become a discriminatory one, excluding the values held by people in particular sectors of society. If nearly all citizens do take the time to become fully educated on the issues, this may excessively remove some people’s attention from other valuable endeavors. One could argue that there would be a certain amount of wastefully redundant effort in this last scenario.
>
> Surprisingly, there is a satisfying resolution to this ancient paradox of democracy: the delegable proxy system.
>
> ...
My proposal, to recreate something along those lines, a mix of Direct
Democracy and Representative Democracy.
No rank or anything arbitrary, you vote or you delegate your vote on
each issue. Then the result is sorted out using whatever counting method
was constitutionally chosen (or available). Approval voting being the
easiest (and one endorsed by many).
echarp - http://leparlement.org/top-politics
echarp
* who can propose issues?
* how are organised issues?
My propositions:
* anybody can propose
* an issue is proposed as a descendant to another issue (hierarchy)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
Because the need is the best motivator to do. If we approach to this
issue with no big need, then lack of motivation will be a bad thing in
a process of letting go some personal concepts that do not have general
aproval.
So, do we in this moment as a group need voting systems? What is an
actual group that needs such and for what excatly? For making
supperinitiative body? What are we going to delegate that body for? I
suppose we need this sort of answers if we wanna go forward in this
way.
2. Again. For what do we need this? What I can notice, we (Tiaktiv)
need communication software based on equality, opennes and
transparency which would be base for decision making processes
including votign systems. In this way, best voting systems will offer
these organisations best progress, making them become politically more
relevant. What is important is that having more people engaged, we can
use concpet of plurality and in that way facts will let people give up
from models that show some lacks in reality.
3. OK. That is part I allways agree :-)
ATB,
Gale
illegale
actually need in this very time for Croatia. Is this interesting to
World, that is up to all of us to decide.
pether....@gmail.com
Agree that has been a lots of talking, a good suggestions with a short
status update what each of us plan to do now.
All of us have there own agenda, myself for an example are doing some
small updates on the infrastructure for my project Direct Democracy
Portal to support EJB3 development.
Will also catch up on some of the posts to this group that I want to
answer, will try to
answer http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/268 in a bit
more detail to cover how I plan to setup www.directdemocracyparty.net
once the code actually does something useful..
One thing we could do together is to better define the scope of the
discussion that takes place here, less talking and more code and
documentation updates :)
Best regards
Pether Sorling
MG
1. The idea is to define a general political system ruled by the people
in the best way.
One important task in this new system will be the decisionmaking and
how it will be solved.
So:
2. A good idea I think is to use the decisionssystem choosen in 1. and
use it during the development of the rest of the parts of the new
political system. And also to finish the decisionssystem and make it
fully functional and secure enough.
3. ...is basically the rest of the needed infrastructure.
MG
http://wse75376.web16.talkactive.net/PHPbb/phpbb2019/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=58
Some of it is already implemented here:
http://joasig.goldeye.info/
MG
Anyway, much of it seems to the same ideas that we have in AD.
What differences would you like to point out (compared to AD)?
The only major I see is AD:s timedepandant contious vote process but
maybe I missed something.
illegale
ATB,
Gale
MG
What do you and the rest of us think?
echarp
> What differences would you like to point out (compared to AD)?
I don't know what are the exact differences, I think it is just a matter
of proxy delegates in both cases, and in my case too!
Condorcet or other ranking methods is not a requirement, just a
possibility. Again, the simplest would be approval.
(I love simplicity and will go to extremes to obtain it! :)
> The only major I see is AD:s timedepandant contious vote process but
> maybe I missed something.
In my mind continuous votes do imply that recalculations are made right
away, no cycle or any period due to logistics. Although can be devised
some sort of inertia, particularly the period during which votes and
delegations are valid, in order to make sure some issues can evolve with
time.
If this validity is short, say 2 days, then each vote on each issue will
die after some time, you would then obtain a newspaper like slashdot,
but democractic!
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
away, no cycle or any period due to logistics. Although can be devised
some sort of inertia, particularly the period during which votes and
delegations are valid, in order to make sure some issues can evolve
with
time.
MG:- The idea in AD is that issues with small or no interest should and
can be lying for years.
If someone finds it more important than the progress shows, he have to
promote the issue to raise opinion.
This is a sound feature I must say since too many of todays decisions
are made too quickly when it comes to important stuff, like wars,
taxes, education, roads, energy etc.
>If this validity is short, say 2 days, then each vote on each issue will
die after some time, you would then obtain a newspaper like slashdot,
but democractic!
MG:- Well, but very quick votes can be dangerous due to the risk of
populism. And with such a short validity of the votes, I think that
some voters just wouldn't bother after a while to vote again in the
same issue.
Better then that the vote is valid but that you can change it if you
change your mind after a long time.
In that way most votes will be very well considered and the voters wil
be less stressed.
Most mistakes are made under time pressure.
illegale
be 100 000 people and we have a great and just mecanism that brings
great and just solutions.
Though, if I say. We use this mechanism and look at us where we are in
this moment, than it is a different story. That is a story me looking
for. Yet, I recently asked Mark if he is interested to create some
model based on pageranking/sd-2 for Tiaktiv, but he was not that
intereseted in that (right?). I suppose he is better in agitation of
the rough concept.
In that time I explained that if we let some procedure be our muster,
not our reason any more, we have to have great trust in that procedure.
If we make it happen, than it is great. But how?
Me personaly will adopt such procedure only in the moment common
methods such as concensus and common reason start lacking because of
the big numbers. Till that moment, me personaly wont support
procedures, especially new ones to take part of my legitimity.
Now, look at this group. In this moment, thanks to the transparency we
can realtively easily notice power and sustainability factors that are
important in possible decisions that are not made by concensus. My
common sense in this moment can keep these numbers.
Involving any procedure, I am letting my common sense and taking
something that I do not have big trust, at least not that bg as trust
in my common sense is.
So, I am not supporter of letting legitimation of my common sense if
there is no great need that is not just in my head. That is actually
the way many other people think, that is the reason procedures by
themselve are actually not the base, but only supportive mechanism for
any political body, such as our parties aand other non profit
organisations are.
I hope I was clear in giving you arguments of why I am not supporter of
virtual mechanism that are not based on reality need.
MG
virtual mechanism that are not based on reality need.
MG:- Well, you don't see a need in this group today or in the world at
all?
???
illegale
MG
illegale
differ, solidarisation, world infrastructure for realisation of common
interests, progress based on common base.
Suppose there are some more I dont have in mind in this momen.
illegale
to support it, just because that means this concept has political
potential that is not so common thing.
echarp
> MG:- The idea in AD is that issues with small or no interest should and
> can be lying for years.
> If someone finds it more important than the progress shows, he have to
> promote the issue to raise opinion.
> This is a sound feature I must say since too many of todays decisions
> are made too quickly when it comes to important stuff, like wars,
> taxes, education, roads, energy etc.
I totally agree. In fact most issues, and there might be a huge number
of them, will certainly remain at very very low acceptation levels.
No need for them to be purged.
To reduce volume, a given server could refuse the things not originating
from given electoral lists.
> MG:- Well, but very quick votes can be dangerous due to the risk of
> populism. And with such a short validity of the votes, I think that
> some voters just wouldn't bother after a while to vote again in the
> same issue.
This short validity I am speaking about, is a feature that can be used
on some issues, not their totality. It would result in a newspaper or a
magazine depending on the length. On more important concerns there could
still be such a validity period, to make sure things evolve, don't
remain stale, but a much longer period: years, decades, eternity!
Plus it could have the nice added benefit that "unsupported" laws would
just die out. Well, it is a feature *I* would appreciate, but this is
left to your appreciation.
To make sure you don't have mood swings there is the solution of some
sort of _inertia_.
For example all issues which have reached beyond a previously accepted
upon acceptation level during a given time will come into action. I'm
not fan of that inertia, but it is a possibility, one which may well
become a requirement.
I'm rather confident that inertia will be a feature... of the voters ;-)
Anyway, whether inertia or validity periods, I do not think they are
basic requirements. TODO in Version 2! :-)
> Better then that the vote is valid but that you can change it if you
> change your mind after a long time.
This is definitely a requirement! Changing one's mind is a feature that
is among the positive differentiations from traditional votes!!!
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Mark
intereseted in that (right?). I suppose he is better in agitation of
-M: I am a non-programmer, but I can clarify and/or modify on the
existing SD2 constraints.
I can also suggest ways to fuse SD2 with other systems.
What do you want?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
illegale
> Hello all,
>
> Agree that has been a lots of talking, a good suggestions with a short
> status update what each of us plan to do now.
>
> All of us have there own agenda, myself for an example are doing some
> small updates on the infrastructure for my project Direct Democracy
> Portal to support EJB3 development.
OK. Yet, as long as you proposed it, wating for you to follow, as long
as I absolutely agree with this.
> Will also catch up on some of the posts to this group that I want to
> answer, will try to
> answer http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/268 in a bit
> more detail to cover how I plan to setup www.directdemocracyparty.net
> once the code actually does something useful..
OK.
> One thing we could do together is to better define the scope of the
> discussion that takes place here, less talking and more code and
> documentation updates :)
We definitelly need form for discussion that wont make so much noise as
we can notice around in this moment.
ATB,
Gale
>
> Best regards
> Pether Sorling
MG
illegale
realize them. Yet, it seems to me that no one has yet got too keen for
others projects.
Right?
MG
See my postings here:
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/d5e10172183a7028/a40ab0d956dcbf91#a40ab0d956dcbf91
we should discuss more about real actions and less about DD vs RD..
illegale
"I like the idea of a multiconcept system.
I think all of us have there own agenda and a certain vision until now
on how to reach the goals of the agenda.
In this way we could all get what we need and some good darwinism will
most certainly occur on the way!
And we will also get to know each other and form a very powerful
network in the same time. "
OK. We agree. Plus. We agree about step by step approach, so it seems
we need first step.
What is even more important is to involve other "sleeelpers" in this
issue, as long as when we start moving forward, it wont be that easy to
chabge global lines as it is possible now.
In this moment, we did not involve Mark in this stuff. Mark, are you
interested in this?
Charles, Eric, Pether? Do you have any interest in realisation of
common projects?
ATB,
Gale
MG
whole world...
Anyone we know of that don't know about this gruop?
When the action starts, some sleepers might awake, the rest don't care,
as usual.
Hopefully more will be attracted when they see that here is not only
talking which will increase legitimity.
MG
I suggest that we decide upon a voting system, start can be just 50%+1,
in order to be able to make some further decisions.
Anyone aginast that and why in that case?
illegale
I have to comment this.
Group decision making scenario is what I find pretty esential in the
moment there are only several of us, needing strong consolidation to
endure issues that are in front of us.
This means working on consensus, removing cons with arguments (there
are no 1000 of us that would make concesus aiming pretty hard thing).
Of course, if some of us find this stuff too heavy, having too many
cons, that could actually mean the group in that status has no
possiblitiy of consolidation which is important issue in political
work, needing separation of initiatives.
Of course, as long as I am advocator of moving forward together, if
other members legitimate 50%+1 model, me personaly will support it as
long as the movement of the group has potenetial in opinion of Tiaktiv.
ATB,
Gale
MG
One way to get it is to vote and to debate pros and cons. The outcome
is often consensus.
But it is not actually needed in all cases. If alternative solutions
can coexist in a competetive way nobody needs to feel over ruled by a
mojority.
In this case there are so many new challenges and possibilities that I
see enough options for everybody involved soo far.
We have here an easier task than the formers of a new party where one
and only one voting rule have to exist for example.
In the case of top-politics we can solve many alternatives by simply
adding them to the options list.
illegale
So, voting pro and cons in a way of seeing what ideas have the
strongest base, as we did it in this topic.
When we find several ideas that have strong base, then we start
concensus approaching stuff. Right?
Anyway, this stuff seems will work fine in this moment.
ATB,
Gale
echarp
us can reply with one of the following things:
* +1
* 0
* -1
The original author is of course considered as a +1 unless otherwise
stated, and every one can change their mind at any time.
This is used on many mailing lists, Apache among others, and is quite
easy to manage on such a small group as ours. For the time being it
could be useful as a consultative process.
What do you think?
(you can reply with a +1/0/-1 and any comment you wish to do to explain
and/or promote your opinion).
Whatever the result, it is an ad-hoc process, if it is used it is in
place, otherwise it is simply forgotten. It does not require full
participation or to be done on each and every post.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
In PHPbb for instance there is also a simple voting function if people
wan't anonymity or if we get tired on counting votes manually.
illegale
illegale
A little bit off topic? Why should anyone have anonimity when working
on the public issues? If he is not ready to say what he thinks in
public due to the any reason, then his opinion is not the worthy to be
acknowledged by others. Right?
ATB;
Gale
echarp
> ... Why should anyone have anonimity when working
> on the public issues? If he is not ready to say what he thinks in
> public due to the any reason, then his opinion is not the worthy to be
> acknowledged by others. Right?
Anonymity is an old old debate, is it not useful whenever knowledge
about the participants can be physically used against them?
Personally I consider that our opinions should be public by default, but
one could also hide behind a pseudonym.
echarp - http://leparlement.org/anonymity
MG
acceptable for this kind of task.
A anonymous voter will not be able to create a new user in order to
double his votes, this is something else.
Only his particular vote shall be anonymous.
If we want to make anonymous postings it is OK also with a sub user.
illegale
I am not willing to let majority of pussies who do not have even guts
to claim publicly their attitudes to rule over me.
Second things of course is responsibilitiy of ones decisions which can
not be found out it the process is not done completly transparent.
illegale
echarp wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:56:49AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > ... Why should anyone have anonimity when working
> > on the public issues? If he is not ready to say what he thinks in
> > public due to the any reason, then his opinion is not the worthy to be
> > acknowledged by others. Right?
>
> Anonymity is an old old debate, is it not useful whenever knowledge
> about the participants can be physically used against them?
I understand that some extremes might use terror against supporters of
the laws they do not like. Yet, if there is no enough societal power to
hande tese extremes, than we are talking about nonempowered political
system based on hypocrycy, not true power ratios.
What I can notice in this process of informatisation of the political
process is that we as promotors of the NPS are promotors of elimination
of the hypcricy.
I understand that in this way we acknowledge extremes as people with
more power than the ones who are affraid, but that is the realitiy. If
the one is ready to die for hs goal and if the other one is not ready
even to claim his belef publicly, it would be dishounest of us if we
noticed these two beings hold the same power, because it is pretty far
from the truth. Far enough that it wont interest me as a political
model.
> Personally I consider that our opinions should be public by default, but
> one could also hide behind a pseudonym.
>
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/anonymity
ATB,
Gale
echarp
Plus it is much much easier to implement a transparent and public system
than one were some or all can be anonymised.
None the less, many democrats will defend the need for anonymity, and I
would, in time, offer such a thing... on the electoral list: let the
electoral list manager authorise pseudonyms for those wanting them.
Simple, efficient, rather open.
The relation between a real identity and a pseudonym can be handled in
different manners, all less secure and more complex than the fully
public system, but still available.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Mark
Simple, efficient, rather open.
-M: With an SD2 based system, a pseudonym-based-proposal could be
endorsed by publicly-ranked individuals, the proposal could aquire the
rank of the highest ranked person that endorses it. Once endorsed by
public people, it would matter little who originally created the
proposal.
I do like allowing for pseudonyms because it would encourage more
controversial proposals to be created.
>ec: The relation between a real identity and a pseudonym can be handled in different manners, all less secure and more complex than the fully public system, but still available.
-M: Maybe the proposal could be signed with a PGP key.
Mark
>G: I am not willing to let majority of pussies who do not have even guts to claim publicly their attitudes to rule over me.
-M: Let people be chicken-shit wussies if they want to be.(In many
places in the world, people SHOULD be scared to voice a controversial
opinion. Also, people may just want to be controversial just to stir
debate, and may not actually support their 'opinion' and/or proposal.)
So I say let people have psudeonyms if they want, and let public-people
endorse the proposals if they choose. A highly articulate public-person
may have the confidence to endorse a controversial opinion, confidence
that most may not have.
>G: Second things of course is responsibilitiy of ones decisions which can not be found out it the process is not done completly transparent.
-M: There is not need to be accountable with the creation of a
proposal, but the endorsement of a proposal could have accountability.
I imagine that an SD2-based system could have publicly-ranked-people
with *portfolios* of the proposals that they have created, modified,
critiqued and/or endorsed. To gain rank, I imagine that one would want
to have a portfolio of several proposals that are either popular, or
are gaining popularity of the highly ranked.
echarp
> I do like allowing for pseudonyms because it would encourage more
> controversial proposals to be created.
Same same, but anonymity can also be an important matter when talking
about who supports what.
> -M: Maybe the proposal could be signed with a PGP key.
Proposals, votes, delegations, electoral lists, results, could be signed
with PGP keys...
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
Totally agreed.
In a perfect world everything could be open but we are not there,
echarp.
illegale
any power. People who are delegated by that sort of base actually do
not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their
true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by
minorities that hold the power and that destabilises the system.
In other words, if someone decides to overtorn that system, he will be
in position to do so, as long as that system has no true power within
it. I do not look forward for such a system, I am looking forward for
the system that will replace hypocricy with exact ratios that are
legitimated by default.
MG
If you are talking about delagates not showing both in advance and
afterwards how they vote I agree on that it is unacceptable.
When I talk about the right to be anonymous when delegating to anyone
else, (a person or organization) , voting or debating, I mean citizens
only.
>People who are delegated by that sort of base actually do
not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their
true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by
minorities that hold the power and that destabilises the system.
MG:-What do you mean?
Mark
-M: Maybe the reason you think it is one of my best is because you
agree with it.
And I am being ideological instead of being structural - this is
something that people are more habituated to.
I still think that the main issue is CENTRALITY ALGORITHMS, an issue
that people keep DODGING.
SD2 creates an environment where advanced ideologies can evolve on
their own, and I have given some examples.
>mG: In a perfect world everything could be open but we are not there, echarp
-M: Emmanuel does seem idealistic in an unrealistic way. I'll keep
whupping him into shape.
Mark
not have true support meaning that ther declarative power is not their
true power which is not good for legitimation of their decision by
-M: I don't see the issue being the 'chicken-shit wussies' - I see the
issue being the mechanisms, such as psudonyms, that they would use.
Having a psudonym system would allow someone to attack their own
proposal - a Platonic dialog with themselves - this would increase the
versality in which people could communicate controversial proposals.
Mark
-M: Then don't vote for someone who doesn't show his vote. Should
showing a vote now be manditory? I think not.
>mG: When I talk about the right to be anonymous when delegating to anyone else, (a person or organization) , voting or debating, I mean citizens only.
-M: OK. SD2 has both 'representitives' and 'directors'. I can see how
director votes on issues should be manditory, but reps should have
secret votes if they want(this would probably hurt their rank).
illegale
influence in the politics, considering the fact they only gain around
5%, having contra themselves more than 5%.
So, how is that possible that 5% can have that big influence in
politics? I consider it is the fact that nobody is ready to confront
them openly, so even they do have only 5%, nobody in the governement
structures is ready to confront them either. Base of those who have the
majoritiy is quiet, they have not strong support that would put them in
position to rule over 5% in a manner of just and honour, but in a
manner of power.
Though, let me get to the point. We have TWO options (OK, maybe more,
but this is how I see) in modeling of political system.
First - all people have equal power as default. This is dogmatic, non
truth. I believe I do nto have to explain why this is not true.
Second - all people have power they do have. This is open system
tending towards equilibirum.
What I can notice about these options is that informatization age is
fighting with ideologies, with dogmas and so on. Informatisation age is
putting facts, reality before them. We might not like this process that
is removing many illusions we have, yet, freeing truth is actually the
way of our personal freedoms. Of every single each one of us.
This is what I support.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
Politics is a menagment of the societal power. If we enter to the
politics in a right manner, then we have some power that we can menage.
This power is the power of the parties we create, power of the public
who support us and so on. But it is the POWER, not mere numbers, that
have no power within themselves.
One more point.
Tiaktiv could be an organisation that gathers about 40 of men. Yet,
what do these numbers mean if these 40 of men do not do anything? That
is the reason I see mere numbers have no too much point to create
systems based only on them.
illegale
Yet. You have to have in the mind that this is politics, not debate
club. There is some difference between these two terms.
ATB,
Gale
Mark
>G: Yet. You have to have in the mind that this is politics, not debate
club. There is some difference between these two terms.
-M: The idea here is to get as many ideas *out there* as possible, then
have quality filtering. Let children and imbulciles, and criminals post
if they want.
When people have SD2 ranks, they can put their favorite posts into
their portfolios, and the post can aquire the rank of the highest rank
of whoever endorses it.
This is quality filtering.
Mark
[...] Yet, what do these numbers mean if these 40 of men do not do
anything? That is the reason I see mere numbers have no too much point
to create systems based only on them.
-M: Is this related to SD2?
Is SD2 about ideas or not?
Its not about ideas by itself, but it can be used as a peer-review
structure by which to evaluate ideas and to evaluate the implimenters
of ideas.
SD2 is about QUALITY, and if people want powerful ideas, SD2 can be
used to find quality and powerful ideas.
MG
Both on rank of posts and/or of originator.
Mark
Both on rank of posts and/or of originator.
-M: Is there accumulative voting like with EC-D and SD2?
MG
But the voter decides if he agrees with the others to vote for the
proposal ofcourse.
Mark
proposal ofcourse.
-M: So the voters vote for the other voters?(If so, this is RD.)
How many layers deep does this go?
PageRank is potentially infinate.
MG
How many layers deep does this go?
PageRank is potentially infinate.
-No. what I mean with rank here is that as in many forums today you
have the possibility to put a rank on a person or his postings.
Same system can be used for ranking proposals to be voted about. On the
other hand puting a vote against a proposal usually means the same
thing.
Maybe it would be meaningful to put a low a rank on a proposal if there
are more than 2 alternatives to vote on.
illegale
Mark wrote:
> >G: Politics is a menagment of the societal power. If we enter to the politics in a right manner, then we have some power that we can menage.
> [...] Yet, what do these numbers mean if these 40 of men do not do
> anything? That is the reason I see mere numbers have no too much point
> to create systems based only on them.
>
> -M: Is this related to SD2?
It is actually about right of decision making for an organisation that
wants to be vital.
> Is SD2 about ideas or not?
> Its not about ideas by itself, but it can be used as a peer-review
> structure by which to evaluate ideas and to evaluate the implimenters
> of ideas.
> SD2 is about QUALITY, and if people want powerful ideas, SD2 can be
> used to find quality and powerful ideas.
Of course, this works if you do trust influence network, something both
of us do :-)
ATB,
Gale
Mark
>mG: No. what I mean with rank here is that as in many forums today you have the possibility to put a rank on a person or his postings. Same system can be used for ranking proposals to be voted about.
-M: NO! Why don't you understand this yet? Voting for proposals can't
be accumulative because proposals can't vote for each other, while reps
can.
This gives much more interesting centrality data, because the chains of
endorsement can be followed from one to the next. Your system
abritrarily ends this process with single connection data. Why?
MG
abritrarily ends this process with single connection data. Why?
-Please write something understandable. How can issues (don't give me
the ususal BS that DD and issues are L-based etc etc) be anything else
than a single data, in the end?
Do you mean that an endless discussion, like this one, is a better
output..?
Isn't your goal in this discussion only a single very basic one, that I
shall confess to SD2 and forget about every other Lemming-based idea in
the world?
Mark
>mG-Please write something understandable. How can issues (don't give me
the ususal BS that DD and issues are L-based etc etc) be anything else
than a single data, in the end?
-M: No! That is not the end.
The end is either a quality DECISION or not.
>mG: Do you mean that an endless discussion, like this one, is a better
output..?
-M: No, I said "your system abritrarily ends this process..."
meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with
themself, other(s) or both.
"...with single connection data. Why?"
And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily
stopped at this step? Why can't the representation chain continue for
several steps?
>mG: Isn't your goal in this discussion only a single very basic one, that I
shall confess to SD2 and forget about every other Lemming-based idea in
the world?
-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in
your system.
MG
meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with
themself, other(s) or both.
"...with single connection data. Why?"
And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily
stopped at this step? Why can't the representation chain continue for
several steps?
-Maybe you are very slow on getting things, but I do believe in DD
(prefferably AD), not RD. So tell me a way of making that better,
because you will never persuade me on thinking that RD is better.
>-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in
your system.
-I'm trying all the time but you are not listening. Everytime a proof
the superiority of DD you come dragging with the L-word.
Boring is an understatement.
Mark
meaning this process of representing their opinion can either be with
themself, other(s) or both.
"...with single connection data. Why?"
And if its with other(s), why is the representation process arbitrarily
stopped at this step? Why can't the representation chain continue for
several steps?
>mG: -Maybe you are very slow on getting things, but I do believe in DD (prefferably AD), not RD. So tell me a way of making that better, because you will never persuade me on thinking that RD is better.
-M: The goal isn't for me to convince you that RD is better than DD.
Its for you to convince me that L-RD and L-DD(which AD is both) is
better than real-RD(SD2).
I already showed that you arbitrarily limit the representation chains.
>-M: Yes, or explain why you support what seem like arbitrary limits in your system.
>mG-I'm trying all the time but you are not listening. Everytime a proof the superiority of DD you come dragging with the L-word.
-M: Focus - *arbitrary limits in the representation chains* - why? (No
L-word here.)
Why should the inital voter have the option to pass on voting power,
but this voting power can't be passed on from one rep to the next?(the
technical capability is there). Why this LIMIT?
(This is *L-RD and L-DD* vs SD2 and even an accurately concieved EC-D -
Emmanuel STILL has yet to explain how he can have accumulative voting
without PageRank. He seems to want to get me into a Euro-Lemming forum
where he would have less accountability than among his peers here.)
MG
Its for you to convince me that L-RD and L-DD(which AD is both) is
better than real-RD(SD2).
-Don't tell me my goals. I think I know yours but if I'm wrong you are
free to correct.
>-M: Focus - *arbitrary limits in the representation chains* - why? (No
L-word here.)
Why should the inital voter have the option to pass on voting power,
but this voting power can't be passed on from one rep to the next?(the
technical capability is there). Why this LIMIT?
-When did I say that I advocate that limit?
This is not well written or developed in AD since we concentrate on the
decisionmaking process rather than on reps.
Maybe the SD2 concept might work under the AD-umbrella when it comes to
rep.s/delegates/individuals needed besides the DD parts, that much I
have already admitted.
Mark
Its for you to convince me that L-RD and L-DD(which AD is both) is
better than real-RD(SD2).
>mG:-Don't tell me my goals.
-M: By describing your goals better than you I can tell you your goals.
In this case, you keep INCORRECTLY describing AD as DD -
AD is actually *mixed* or *RD*, never is it DD alone because it always
allows for delegates(reps).
>mG: I think I know yours but if I'm wrong you are free to correct.
-M: You are free to correct me, and I see that you didn't.
>-M: Focus - *arbitrary limits in the representation chains* - why? (No L-word here.)
Why should the inital voter have the option to pass on voting power,
but this voting power can't be passed on from one rep to the next?(the
technical capability is there). Why this LIMIT?
>mG:-When did I say that I advocate that limit?
-M: By advocating majoritarianism you are advocating L-RD and L-DD.
(This has the arbitrary mathematical limits that I describe.)
>mG: This is not well written or developed in AD since we concentrate on the decisionmaking process rather than on reps.
-M: If you advocate majoritarianism, then this limit is in place.
>mG: Maybe the SD2 concept might work under the AD-umbrella when it comes to rep.s/delegates/individuals needed besides the DD parts, that much I
have already admitted.
-M: That would be an SD2 umbrella with an AD subsystem. I am fine with
this. :-)
Breakthrough?
MG
this. :-)
Breakthrough?
-Other way around!
Why call the obeyers (reps) umbrellas when the absolute power in every
single issue lies by the citizen?
Mark
Breakthrough?
>mG: -Other way around! Why call the obeyers (reps) umbrellas when the absolute power in every
single issue lies by the citizen?
-M: If SD2 is used to select legislators, this is an SD2 umbrella,
(even if the people still vote on delegates and issues).
SD2 is just math - it REQUIRES the voting input of participants to
work.(Both of our systems are democratic, it just that the math is
different.
I think that the people can be better represented indirectly(with the
option for direct representation) than directly.)
The legislators have the option to be 'rubber stamps' - approving
everything that passes certain mathematical threasholds.
I personally would feel safe with 70% DD threasholds, but *50%+1* is
too apt to be bought by corrupt institutional influences.
You have expressed similar sentiments, but have not offered a
mathematical solution to the *50%+1* problem.
MG
Do they or don't they have personal power?
Or are they just there to follow democratically agreed, pre-set rules?
If the latter I would call them administrators, implementing what's
decided by the voters.
Mark
MG wrote:
>mG: Please clarify what legislators are?
-M: They are lawmakers (not administrators.)
If a PageRank system was used, people could have somewhat-direct but
unequal lawmaking power.
>mG: Do they or don't they have personal power?
-M: Lawmaking power.
>mG: Or are they just there to follow democratically agreed, pre-set rules?
> If the latter I would call them administrators, implementing what's
> decided by the voters.
-M: Agreed.
I would have administrators largely selected by general rank.(This
isn't SD2, but it would be allowed by SD2.)
MG
-Not acceptable. Many laws can limit the bill of rights for the people.
Also less important laws has to be decided by the voters or their
delegates.
>>mG: Or are they just there to follow democratically agreed, pre-set rules?
> If the latter I would call them administrators, implementing what's
> decided by the voters.
>-M: Agreed.
I would have administrators largely selected by general rank.(This
isn't SD2, but it would be allowed by SD2.)
-OK, and AD can use the SD2 principles for choosing these admins. The
only question is if they shall have own power or only be tools for
what's alredy decide.
Look at it this way, AD wants to replace the politicians, not the
admins (clerks, chief of defence, police etc.)
Mark
MG wrote:
> >-M: Lawmaking power.
> -Not acceptable. Many laws can limit the bill of rights for the people.
-M:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiquitatem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This
is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be
true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example:
"Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a
gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The
problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women
are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every
member of the group in question (there are some women who are much
stronger than the average).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>mG: Also less important laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates.
-M: That makes them lawmakers.
First you say:
"Not acceptable. Many laws can limit the bill of rights for the people"
Then you say:
"...laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates."
So now its "Not acceptable [for laws] to be decided by the voters or
their delegates [because] many laws can limit the bill of rights for
the people"?
Please watch your consistency.
> >>mG: Or are they just there to follow democratically agreed, pre-set rules?
> > If the latter I would call them administrators, implementing what's
> > decided by the voters.
> >-M: Agreed.I would have administrators largely selected by general rank.(This
isn't SD2, but it would be allowed by SD2.)
>mG: -OK, and AD can use the SD2 principles for choosing these admins. The only question is if they shall have own power or only be tools for what's alredy decide.
-M: Our debate is SD2 with an AD umbrella vs AD with an SD2 umbrella.
>mG: Look at it this way, AD wants to replace the politicians, not the admins (clerks, chief of defence, police etc.)
-M: No, AD wants to create masses of lemming-politicians - DOINK!
By contrast, SD2 wants to find the most trustworthy statecraft experts
to keep the powers-that-be from getting control.
MG
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiqu...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). ...
-Not a sweeping genrealization, but a fact!
>>mG: Also less important laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates.
-M: That makes them lawmakers.
First you say:
"Not acceptable. Many laws can limit the bill of rights for the people"
Then you say:
"...laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates."
So now its "Not acceptable [for laws] to be decided by the voters or
their delegates [because] many laws can limit the bill of rights for
the people"?
Please watch your consistency.
-You often have to think one step further...
What I ofcourse mean is that corruption of a few who make important
laws can lead to more problems with bill of rights than if the laws are
made by the people directly. The key word here is corruption.
>-M: Our debate is SD2 with an AD umbrella vs AD with an SD2 umbrella.
-Yes
>-M: No, AD wants to create masses of lemming-politicians - DOINK!
By contrast, SD2 wants to find the most trustworthy statecraft experts
to keep the powers-that-be from getting control.
-BS, which you have no proof of. Not the L-word, nor the "thrustworty"
statecraft experts.
-AD also will use expertise, the important diff. is that the citizens
that want to will judge in the end.
As proposed by Sokrates.
"-Think yourself!"
- We are at nr 73 now and you have still not managed to pursuade me or
anyone else that AD will lead to more Lemming-behaviour than SD2. I
have limited amount of time and find this of little interest now.
I will work more on the Wiki instead.
Mark
MG wrote:
> >-M:
> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiqu...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). ...
>mG: -Not a sweeping genrealization, but a fact!
-M: Yes, it itself was a fact, but the context of your usage made it a
sweeping generalization. Its as if your were saying:
"1. Laws can be bad
2. Therefore we shouldn't have lawmakers."
Did it occur to you that without lawmakers, there would be no laws?
Doink!
> >>mG: Also less important laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates.
> -M: That makes them lawmakers.
> First you say:
> "Not acceptable. Many laws can limit the bill of rights for the people"
> Then you say:
> "...laws has to be decided by the voters or their delegates."
> So now its "Not acceptable [for laws] to be decided by the voters or
> their delegates [because] many laws can limit the bill of rights for
> the people"?
> Please watch your consistency.
>mG: -You often have to think one step further...What I ofcourse mean is that corruption of a few who make important laws can lead to more problems with bill of rights than if the laws are made by the people directly. The key word here is corruption.
-M: OK, we both seem to want anti-corruption mechanisms as our primary
goal, but an issue that you keep DODGING is the fact that the lemmings
can be corrupted.
You have aknowledged this, but you have not offered a solution. My
solution is quality filtering with the PageRank algorithm.
> >-M: Our debate is SD2 with an AD umbrella vs AD with an SD2 umbrella.
>mG: -Yes
-M: OK. This will keep us focused.
> >-M: No, AD wants to create masses of lemming-politicians - DOINK!
> By contrast, SD2 wants to find the most trustworthy statecraft experts
> to keep the powers-that-be from getting control.
>mG: -BS, which you have no proof of. Not the L-word, nor the "trustworthy" statecraft experts.
-M: I do have proof. Did you read the Smartocracy and DDD papers?
>mG: -AD also will use expertise, the important diff. is that the citizens that want to will judge in the end. As proposed by Sokrates."-Think yourself!"
-M: Remember, it was the lemmings that killed Socrates. The lemmings
don't want to think.
>mG: - We are at nr 73 now and you have still not managed to pursuade me or anyone else that AD will lead to more Lemming-behaviour than SD2. I have limited amount of time and find this of little interest now. I will work more on the Wiki instead.
-M: Only the worthy can be pursuaded.
MG
>-M: OK, we both seem to want anti-corruption mechanisms as our primary
goal, but an issue that you keep DODGING is the fact that the lemmings
can be corrupted.
You have aknowledged this, but you have not offered a solution. My
solution is quality filtering with the PageRank algorithm.
-I have not aknowledged that a wole population can be corrupt.
Where do you have proof for that?
Corruption is about getting something that the rest of the population
don't get in trade for something you deliver to a buyer.
Please tell me how this can happen with a comlete population.
Who would be the buyer?
So there doesn't have to be a solution since there is no problem.
>>mG: -BS, which you have no proof of. Not the L-word, nor the "trustworthy" statecraft experts.
>-M: I do have proof. Did you read the Smartocracy and DDD papers?
-No proofs to me, point out the relevant parts or be silent.
>>mG: -AD also will use expertise, the important diff. is that the citizens that want to will judge in the end. As proposed by Sokrates."-Think yourself!"
>-M: Remember, it was the lemmings that killed Socrates. The lemmings
don't want to think.
-And I have told you before that with the AD system in place the
decision for killing would have been
a several weeks, maybe months long.
How can you tell that the outcome would have been the same?
And secondly, I'm not a fan of peoples trials, I wan't to keep the
courts.
This to the fact that legal decisions such as those for convicting
people in a court is best taken by experts, in this case judges,
prosecutors and defenders.
In fact this was one of the shortcomings in the old greek society, the
legal system was very rudimentary.
But this doesn't proof that the rest of the decisions in the society
can't be taken by the people directly.
>-M: Only the worthy can be pursuaded.
-Yeah. right?...
Mark
MG wrote:
> >>mG: -You often have to think one step further...What I ofcourse mean is that corruption of a few who make important laws can lead to more problems with bill of rights than if the laws are made by the people directly. The key word here is corruption.
> >-M: OK, we both seem to want anti-corruption mechanisms as our primary
> goal, but an issue that you keep DODGING is the fact that the lemmings
> can be corrupted. You have aknowledged this, but you have not offered a solution. My
> solution is quality filtering with the PageRank algorithm.
> -I have not aknowledged that a wole population can be corrupt.
> Where do you have proof for that?
-M: You said that they could be influenced by corrupted influences,
such as bought-off media and educational institutions. This is
corruption by extention.
>mG: Corruption is about getting something that the rest of the population don't get in trade for something you deliver to a buyer. Please tell me how this can happen with a comlete population. Who would be the buyer? So there doesn't have to be a solution since there is no problem.
-M:
1. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the minority.
Examples are:
a. slavery in the American South
b. rise of Nazi germany
2. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the majority.
a. Commie -nism
b. Neoconism in the USA - people duped into detroying their republic.
> >>mG: -BS, which you have no proof of. Not the L-word, nor the "trustworthy" statecraft experts.
>
> >-M: I do have proof. Did you read the Smartocracy and DDD papers?
>
> -No proofs to me, point out the relevant parts or be silent.
>
> >>mG: -AD also will use expertise, the important diff. is that the citizens that want to will judge in the end. As proposed by Sokrates."-Think yourself!"
>
>
> >-M: Remember, it was the lemmings that killed Socrates. The lemmings
> don't want to think.
>mG: -And I have told you before that with the AD system in place the decision for killing would have been a several weeks, maybe months long. How can you tell that the outcome would have been the same?
-M: So you want to slow things down. Your solution to problems is time?
Weak.
>mG: And secondly, I'm not a fan of peoples trials, I wan't to keep the
> courts. This to the fact that legal decisions such as those for convicting
> people in a court is best taken by experts, in this case judges,
> prosecutors and defenders.
-M: SD2 is about finding experts. The same method to find jurors would
be used to find legislators. This appears to be a consistency that you
don't have - correct?
>mG: In fact this was one of the shortcomings in the old greek society, the legal system was very rudimentary. But this doesn't proof that the rest of the decisions in the society can't be taken by the people directly.
-M: Your DD has been tried and it continually fails.
> >-M: Only the worthy can be pursuaded.
> -Yeah. right?...
-M: Are those who have their ears closed, worthy?
MG
such as bought-off media and educational institutions. This is
corruption by extention.
-Yes influenced shortsighted, but in the end information will win.
That means that since everything is public, hidden agendas will be
found and stopped.
Simple as that.
>-M:
1. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the minority.
Examples are:
a. slavery in the American South
b. rise of Nazi germany
2. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the majority.
a. Commie -nism
b. Neoconism in the USA - people duped into detroying their republic.
-You are just mentioning a lot of mess in the history.
The expression "Tyrany of the majority" is often used by non-democrats
to "proof" that one smart leader is better.
What kind of BS is that?
-How can the slavery be a "Tyrany of the majority"???
I would call that the tyrrany of a gun...
-Nazis, well a dictator getting elected (a very risky situation present
regulary in most contries!) and then change all the laws for his own
best. Is that a tyranny of the majority?? No tyranny of a despot!
-Commie, same with tha, based on a few "enlightened"...
-Neconimism Plesase explain..
All you examples are pointing to the risk of electing the wrong
leaders, none are pointing on risks with true DD.
>-M: So you want to slow things down. Your solution to problems is time?
Weak.
-Haha, it is the only solution and time is the only thing there is
enough of!
It is spent nowadays on TV and crap debates about corrupt politicians
instead of real issues.
It shoulod instead be used to find the proper and correct arguments.
Before they are found, no decisions can be made.
Do you wan't decisions based on too few or incorrect arguments?
>-M: SD2 is about finding experts. The same method to find jurors would
be used to find legislators. This appears to be a consistency that you
don't have - correct?
-No, the legal system has to be standing apart from the rest of
society, this is an important rule to secure a just and fair trial to
everyone.
Lawmaking is something else, to made by the rulers, the people.
>-M: Your DD has been tried and it continually fails.
-And still you have not shown me one single example of it!
>-M: Are those who have their ears closed, worthy?
-If you call my ears closed, who is really listening to you?
Mark
MG wrote:
> >-M: You said that they could be influenced by corrupted influences,
> such as bought-off media and educational institutions. This is
> corruption by extention.
>mG: -Yes influenced shortsighted, but in the end information will win.
> That means that since everything is public, hidden agendas will be
> found and stopped. Simple as that.
-M: Information is nothing without correct processing.
Who is going to do that, the lemmings?
They will only frame information under the models that have been
provided by the oligarchs.
> >-M:
> 1. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the minority.
> Examples are:
> a. slavery in the American South
> b. rise of Nazi germany
> 2. "Tyrany of the majority" ... against the majority.
> a. Commie -nism
> b. Neoconism in the USA - people duped into destroying their republic.
>mG: -You are just mentioning a lot of mess in the history.
> The expression "Tyrany of the majority" is often used by non-democrats...
-M: 'non-democrats' - *non-populists* instead - careful with the words
- I am a democrat too.
>mG:... to "proof" that one smart leader is better. What kind of BS is that?
-M: No, *representitives* are better than a direct majority.
>mG: -How can the slavery be a "Tyrany of the majority"???
> I would call that the tyrrany of a gun...
-M: Yes, the voting majority had guns.
>mG: -Nazis, well a dictator getting elected (a very risky situation present
> regulary in most contries!) and then change all the laws for his own
> best. Is that a tyranny of the majority?? No tyranny of a despot!
-M: Its the majority that allowed that BS to occur.
>mG: -Commie, same with tha, based on a few "enlightened"...
-M: Please stay focused. I did say that this was a debate of L-DD and
L-RD vs. non-lemming RD.
>mG: -Neconimism Plesase explain..
-M: Neo-conservatism. Our 'conservatives' aren't *conserving* the
principles of our republic.
>mG: All you examples are pointing to the risk of electing the wrong
> leaders, none are pointing on risks with true DD.
-M: Doink! Its all LEMMINGISM generated by the
LEMMING-algorithm(majoritarianism).
> >-M: So you want to slow things down. Your solution to problems is time?
> Weak.
>mG: -Haha, it is the only solution and time is the only thing there is
> enough of! It is spent nowadays on TV and crap debates about corrupt politicians
> instead of real issues. It shoulod instead be used to find the proper and correct arguments. Before they are found, no decisions can be made. Do you wan't decisions based on too few or incorrect arguments?
-M: 'proper', 'few', 'incorrect' - by whose opinion?
I propose a system to find the best experts to evaluate arguments.
You seem to accept the use of experts for administration and judiciary,
but for some reason this is unacceptable for legislation. Why the
difference?
I seem consistent.
> >-M: SD2 is about finding experts. The same method to find jurors would
> be used to find legislators. This appears to be a consistency that you
> don't have - correct?
>mG: -No, the legal system has to be standing apart from the rest of
> society,...
-M: 'Apart' - WTF?
>mG:... this is an important rule to secure a just and fair trial to everyone.
-M: Can't this same principle be used to create fair laws?
Can't SD2-Smartocracy be used for both?
>mG: Lawmaking is something else, to made by the rulers, the people.
>
> >-M: Your DD has been tried and it continually fails.
>
>mG: -And still you have not shown me one single example of it!
-M: Show it to yourself. Anthropological data on
DD-intentional-communities is out there. I don't feel obligated to find
it for you because I have already won. RD is everywhere.
And a well known fact is that DD is not scaleable.
> >-M: Are those who have their ears closed, worthy?
> -If you call my ears closed, who is really listening to you?
-M: I don't know if your ears are closed or not. Time will tell.
MG
Who is going to do that, the lemmings?
They will only frame information under the models that have been
provided by the oligarchs.
-The AD-system.
Best arguments will win.
>-M: 'non-democrats' - *non-populists* instead - careful with the words
- I am a democrat too.
-So realize how these arguments have been used in the history then...
>-M: No, *representitives* are better than a direct majority.
-You can say so how many times you like, but it doesn't mean that it's
proven.
>-M: Doink! Its all LEMMINGISM generated by the
LEMMING-algorithm(majoritarianism).
-Doink yourself! It is only YOUR opinion that all the problems in the
world origins from L.
Still not prooven by you or anyone else.
I contrary, I have proven that your mentioned examples of mess in the
history can be explained by lot of other wrong doings and systems such
as greed, lawbreaking and pure evilness.
And they were in many times commtted under RD rules.
>
-M: 'proper', 'few', 'incorrect' - by whose opinion?
I propose a system to find the best experts to evaluate arguments.
You seem to accept the use of experts for administration and judiciary,
but for some reason this is unacceptable for legislation. Why the
difference?
I seem consistent.
-Judiciary is to be compared with police work.
Legislation is to be compared with (today) politicians work.
Consistent to me is to keep that distinction between making rules and
applying them.
Replacing the politicians by the people is only a natural step since
the politicians SHOULD obey the will of the people.
You want to leave everything to experts which is inconsistent and new
compared to todays system. (Politicians are not experts (definately!),
only delegates)
>-M: Show it to yourself. Anthropological data on
DD-intentional-communities is out there. I don't feel obligated to find
it for you because I have already won. RD is everywhere.
And a well known fact is that DD is not scaleable.
-Haha, and why are you still debating?
"RD is everywhere"...Yeah and I'm fed up with it! It is definately not
working well.
DD is never tried the AD way.
DD is tried to some extent in Switzerland and there found to be working
fine so that's how much I give for your proofs. IF DD sucks, why isn't
Switzerland going down the drain then, compared to your "fine" RD:s.
Not scalable??? Why not? BS!
Mark
MG wrote:
> >-M: Information is nothing without correct processing. Who is going to do that, the lemmings? They will only frame information under the models that have been provided by the oligarchs.
> -The AD-system. Best arguments will win.
-M: In systems dominated by popular opinion, only popular opinion
usually wins.
This means that the oligarchs need only to control the popular opinion
through their media and academic institutions. This is the same
entrenchment that occurs now.
> >-M: 'non-democrats' - *non-populists* instead - careful with the words- I am a democrat too.
>mG: -So realize how these arguments have been used in the history then...
-M: Again, its not RD vs DD, is populism vs republicanism.
> >-M: No, *representitives* are better than a direct majority.
>mG: -You can say so how many times you like, but it doesn't mean that it's proven.
-M: I don't have the burden of proof. Its simply common knowledge that
representitives can administer republicanism better than lemmings can.
> >-M: Doink! Its all LEMMINGISM generated by the
> LEMMING-algorithm(majoritarianism).
>mG: -Doink yourself! It is only YOUR opinion that all the problems in the
> world origins from L. Still not prooven by you or anyone else.
> I contrary, I have proven that your mentioned examples of mess in the
> history can be explained by lot of other wrong doings and systems such
> as greed, lawbreaking and pure evilness. And they were in many times commtted under RD rules.
-M: Yes, and these problems could occur under DD. So the problem isn't
RD, its the lemmingism that is common to both L-RD and L-DD.
Again the argument is non-lemming RD vs. *L-DD and L-RD*.
> -M: 'proper', 'few', 'incorrect' - by whose opinion? I propose a system to find the best experts to evaluate arguments. You seem to accept the use of experts for administration and judiciary, but for some reason this is unacceptable for legislation. Why the difference? I seem consistent.
>mG: -Judiciary is to be compared with police work. Legislation is to be compared with (today) politicians work. Consistent to me is to keep that distinction between making rules and applying them.
-M: I don't see your *step* here. I think you are leaping.
The administration of law is still political.
>mG: Replacing the politicians by the people is only a natural step since the politicians SHOULD obey the will of the people. You want to leave everything to experts which is inconsistent and new compared to todays system. (Politicians are not experts (definately!), only delegates)
-M: Karl, how many times do I have to remind you that I am not
defending L-RD?
Are you going to snap out of it any time soon?
I am advocating SD2-Smartocracy, which would have delegates.
The main difference between my system and yours is that your
generalists and your issues would be selected by a popular vote.
My system doesn't use popular voting.
1. L-DD - popular vote for everything(-2), and ususally has a
centralized administration which discourages participatory
democracy(-1).
2. L-RD - Popular vote(-1) to select representitives(+1). Ususally has
a centralized administration which discourages participatory
democracy(-1).
3. AD - decentralized administration which encourages participatory
democracy(+1), but still has the drawback of popular voting(-1).
4. SD2-Smartocracy - has participatory democracy both legislatively and
administratively(+2) and without the drawback of popular voting(+1).
> >-M: Show it to yourself. Anthropological data on DD-intentional-communities is out there. I don't feel obligated to find it for you because I have already won. RD is everywhere. And a well known fact is that DD is not scaleable.
>mG: -Haha, and why are you still debating? "RD is everywhere"...Yeah and I'm fed up with it! It is definately not working well. DD is never tried the AD way.
-M: True, but AD still has a lemming element(populism), and its this
lemming element which causes problems with L-RD.
>mG: DD is tried to some extent in Switzerland and there found to be working fine so that's how much I give for your proofs. IF DD sucks, why isn't Switzerland going down the drain then, compared to your "fine" RD:s.
-M: Not a comparison because the countries in question are still all
L-RDs.
>mG: Not scalable??? Why not? BS!
-M: Because the larger a DD is, the less access that the average person
has to the central administrators and to each other. The facelessness
reduces accountability to one another. L-DD lacks political
accountability, and without social accountability the L-DD crumbles.
MG
usually wins.
This means that the oligarchs need only to control the popular opinion
through their media and academic institutions. This is the same
entrenchment that occurs now. "
-As I have explaned several times before, the popular opinion will be
much more diversified with all info present. Today, almost everything
is hidden by the reps. And this can continue with SD2 as long as people
not sees what they miss!
"-M: Yes, and these problems could occur under DD. So the problem isn't
RD, its the lemmingism that is common to both L-RD and L-DD. "
-They cannot occur under DD because not enough power will be
concentrated to few enough individuals capable of committing crimes for
their own purpose.
"-M: I don't see your *step* here. I think you are leaping.
The administration of law is still political."
-Even in your own country there are writings in the constitution about
the importance of an independent court system, capable even of sacking
the politicians.
How this is overcomed by corrupt reps is another story.
"-M: Karl, how many times do I have to remind you that I am not
defending L-RD?"
-You are defending RD but tries to forget the negative aspects about
it.
All that you call Lemming-behaviour. How easy.
"-M: True, but AD still has a lemming element(populism), and its this
lemming element which causes problems with L-RD. "
-So tell me why the populism would be less with SD2 than AD?
Populism can very likely occur if a good guy in USA happens to cheat on
his wife or drive drunk.
I'm not saying that these are small problems, but are they relevant for
his political skills?
With AD nothing like this can occur except for the delegates.
=Proof of less populism in AD than SD2.
"-M: Not a comparison because the countries in question are still all
L-RDs. "
-No, but the best we have. If it where so bafd as you say, there would
be big problems in this contry compared to "pure" RD-contries.
"-M: Because the larger a DD is, the less access that the average
person
has to the central administrators and to each other. The facelessness
reduces accountability to one another. L-DD lacks political
accountability, and without social accountability the L-DD crumbles. "
-BS theories maninly written in last last century by republicans
defending the system they are living on.
Nothing of that is proven and besides that, the internet puts all this
to a new light.
Mark
MG wrote:
> "-M: In systems dominated by popular opinion, only popular opinion
> usually wins. This means that the oligarchs need only to control the popular opinion
> through their media and academic institutions. This is the same entrenchment that occurs now. "
>mG: -As I have explaned several times before, the popular opinion will be
> much more diversified with all info present. Today, almost everything
> is hidden by the reps.
-M: More transparency can help, but how would high level delegate
debate under AD be any different? Wouldn't delegates get documents from
the administrative branch the same way that current legislators get
their documents?
>mG: And this can continue with SD2 as long as people not sees what they miss!
-M: (thanks for attacking SD2 instead of L-RD)
No - I see AD as being much like the current system where
administrators and legislators are separate.
Under SD2-Smartocracy they would be comingled and everyone's position
would be very unstable and fluid. I don't think that they could make
mistakes as easily as they could with AD - only expert opinion would be
decisive.
> "-M: Yes, and these problems could occur under DD. So the problem isn't RD, its the lemmingism that is common to both L-RD and L-DD. "
>mG: -They cannot occur under DD because not enough power will be concentrated to few enough individuals capable of committing crimes for their own purpose.
-M: But you could have the lemmings committing crimes against
themselves for their *perceived* purposes. "To the sea we go, yippee!"
> "-M: I don't see your *step* here. I think you are leaping.
> The administration of law is still political."
>mG: -Even in your own country there are writings in the constitution about
> the importance of an independent court system, capable even of sacking
> the politicians. How this is overcomed by corrupt reps is another story.
-M: You still haven't explained why anti-corruption mechanisms should
be applied to one domain and not the other. You may be giving an
example, but you aren't giving theory.
> "-M: Karl, how many times do I have to remind you that I am not
> defending L-RD?"
>mG: -You are defending RD but tries to forget the negative aspects about
> it. All that you call Lemming-behaviour. How easy.
-M: The negativeness of L-RD comes from the lemmingness, not the
representitiveness.
> "-M: True, but AD still has a lemming element(populism), and its this
> lemming element which causes problems with L-RD. "
>mG: -So tell me why the populism would be less with SD2 than AD?
-M: Because experts would make the decisions and not Joe Sixpack.
>mG: Populism can very likely occur if a good guy in USA happens to cheat on his wife or drive drunk. I'm not saying that these are small problems, but are they relevant for his political skills?
-M: Its for the statecraft experts to decide what his politial skills
are.
>mG: With AD nothing like this can occur except for the delegates.
=Proof of less populism in AD than SD2.
-M: Eigenvector convergence. Rodriguez has somewhat explained this.
> "-M: Not a comparison because the countries in question are still all
> L-RDs. "
>mG: -No, but the best we have. If it where so bafd as you say, there would
be big problems in this contry compared to "pure" RD-contries.
-M: They are already lemmingized so they already have the problems of
if they were more DD-like.
> "-M: Because the larger a DD is, the less access that the average person has to the central administrators and to each other. The facelessness reduces accountability to one another. L-DD lacks political accountability, and without social accountability, the L-DD crumbles. "
>mG: -BS theories maninly written in last last century by republicans defending the system they are living on. Nothing of that is proven[...]
-M: Then attack it. I say that my points are still standing.
MG
debate under AD be any different? Wouldn't delegates get documents from
the administrative branch the same way that current legislators get
their documents? "
-First, what is current legislators?
In my country, all documents are written by the reps. themselves,
lobbyists, by regeringskansliet(office of government), riksdagens
utredningstjänst(sort of office by the parliament) or any other
authority such as EU, UN or another state.
These documents are then handled by the rep.s in differnt ways.
What would happen when AD is in the parliament is that the same
documents would be send out to the party.
There would probably be a function responsible for that all info is
made public according TOP to the members of AD.
And after that it is up to all members to react and use the information
to propose actions or delegations (Specific tasks, not voting
delegates).
Already existing voting delegates would have to act as any other member
and propose actions.
And ofcourse to defend them by debating them and other proposals.
">mG: And this can continue with SD2 as long as people not sees what
they miss!
-M: (thanks for attacking SD2 instead of L-RD)
No - I see AD as being much like the current system where
administrators and legislators are separate.
Under SD2-Smartocracy they would be comingled and everyone's position
would be very unstable and fluid. I don't think that they could make
mistakes as easily as they could with AD - only expert opinion would be
decisive. "
-Even experts can make mistakes if they don't have the correct info.
With AD they would be able to get the very best overwiev since all
experts, not only the highest ranked would have the possibility to
articulate their view.
SD2 would filter away much knowledge.
"-M: But you could have the lemmings committing crimes against
themselves for their *perceived* purposes. "To the sea we go, yippee!"
-Stupid comparison with simple real lemmings. This have never happened
in a free society.
"-M: You still haven't explained why anti-corruption mechanisms should
be applied to one domain and not the other. You may be giving an
example, but you aren't giving theory."
-And you have only a theory that corruption can occur in a whole
population, no valid examples.
There is need for anti-corruption mechanisms in both legal and RD
systems, and there are.
But they don't work so well as we know.
"-M: The negativeness of L-RD comes from the lemmingness, not the
representitiveness."
-Yeah, sure!
">mG: -So tell me why the populism would be less with SD2 than AD?
-M: Because experts would make the decisions and not Joe Sixpack. "
-But it's only an assumtion from you that there will be decisions taken
by a majority of Joe Sixpacks.
How can you allow Joe Sixpacks to vote?
Is'nt it more likely that Joe Sixpack elects an idiot every week than
that he constantly votes on wrong proposals.
In fact he don't care so much so he would care for specific issues, he
rather go for a nice guy, promising him cheap beer and ciggarets.
"-M: Its for the statecraft experts to decide what his politial skills
are. "
-But wouldn't a wifecheater loose rank in USA? Even if experts say that
he is intelligent?
"-M: Eigenvector convergence. Rodriguez has somewhat explained this. "
-How?? It's the fact.
"-M: They are already lemmingized so they already have the problems of
if they were more DD-like. "
-So it doesn't matter then...RD or DD?
"-M: Then attack it. I say that my points are still standing."
-Not much for an answer really. I have written so much about why DD
would work in the AD-way that these guys would be standing silent.
Mark
MG wrote:
> "-M: More transparency can help, but how would high level delegate debate under AD be any different? Wouldn't delegates get documents from the administrative branch the same way that current legislators get their documents? "
>mG: -First, what is current legislators?
-M: What you described below.
>mG: In my country, all documents are written by the reps. themselves, lobbyists, by regeringskansliet(office of government), riksdagen utredningstjänst(sort of office by the parliament) or any other authority such as EU, UN or another state. These documents are then handled by the rep.s in differnt ways. What would happen when AD is in the parliament is that the same documents would be send out to the party. There would probably be a function responsible for that all info is made public according TOP to the members of AD.
-M: This is just a different information handling procedure. Small
stuff.
>mG: And after that it is up to all members to react and use the information to propose actions or delegations (Specific tasks, not voting delegates). Already existing voting delegates would have to act as any other member and propose actions. And ofcourse to defend them by debating them and other proposals.
-M: Sounds like normal parliamentary procedure to me.
The only difference here is that more people are involved - so?
Is some booga-wooga magic supposed to occur here as a result?
> ">mG: And this can continue with SD2 as long as people not sees what they miss!
> -M: (thanks for attacking SD2 instead of L-RD) No - I see AD as being much like the current system where administrators and legislators are separate. Under SD2-Smartocracy they would be comingled and everyone's position would be very unstable and fluid. I don't think that they could make mistakes as easily as they could with AD - only expert opinion would be decisive. "
>mG: -Even experts can make mistakes if they don't have the correct info. With AD they would be able to get the very best overwiev since all experts, not only the highest ranked would have the possibility to articulate their view. SD2 would filter away much knowledge.
-M: No, SD2-S has *teeth* - not only would SD2-S top ranked have access
to the full diversity of opinion, they would be REQUIRED to listen - if
not, the top ranked would lose rank, and they would know it.
This is also why I have *trustees* as well as delegates - the trustees
are generalists who would guard *fair procedure*, to protect and
entertain minority opinion.
By contrast your AD is a *specialist* and *popular opinion* system that
would help to guard the current populist lemming entrenchments.
> "-M: But you could have the lemmings committing crimes against themselves for their *perceived* purposes. "To the sea we go, yippee!"
>mG: -Stupid comparison with simple real lemmings. This have never happened in a free society.
-M: Its happening now in the USA.
Americans are being duped into imperialism. :-(
This is lemmingness that I am experiencing, and it hurts.
> "-M: You still haven't explained why anti-corruption mechanisms should be applied to one domain and not the other. You may be giving an example, but you aren't giving theory."
>mG: -And you have only a theory that corruption can occur in a whole population, no valid examples.
-M: The Bushmonkey being elected with the lemming algorithm is an
example.
This is L-RD that reflects badly on L-DD.
>mG: There is need for anti-corruption mechanisms in both legal and RD systems, and there are. But they don't work so well as we know.
> "-M: The negativeness of L-RD comes from the lemmingness, not the
> representitiveness."
>mG: -Yeah, sure!
-M: Look how many people voted for the Bushmonkey.
Would you trust them in a L-DD?
(You should have conceded to this point long ago.)
> ">mG: -So tell me why the populism would be less with SD2 than AD?
> -M: Because experts would make the decisions and not Joe Sixpack. "
>mG: -But it's only an assumtion from you that there will be decisions taken by a majority of Joe Sixpacks. How can you allow Joe Sixpacks to vote? Is'nt it more likely that Joe Sixpack elects an idiot every week than that he constantly votes on wrong proposals. In fact he don't care so much so he would care for specific issues, he rather go for a nice guy, promising him cheap beer and ciggarets.
-M: You are comparing L-DD with L-RD.
In my book they are both too close for comfort.
Is your delegatory algorithm accumulative or not?
If it is accumulative, then its not L-DD,
and you should stop defending a system that isn't even yours.
> "-M: Its for the statecraft experts to decide what his politial skills are. "
>mG: -But wouldn't a wifecheater loose rank in USA? Even if experts say that he is intelligent?
-M: I think that he would lose more rank under L-RD than SD2-S.
> "-M: Eigenvector convergence. Rodriguez has somewhat explained this. "
> -How?? It's the fact.
-M: Experts are better at determining who other experts are than Joe
Sixpack is.
(Eigenvector convergence finds the experts in a network.)
> "-M: They are already lemmingized so they already have the problems of if they were more DD-like. "
>mG: -So it doesn't matter then...RD or DD?
-M: Both systems are lemmingized, so there may be little difference.
But only RD has the potential of being un-lemmingized via
Augmented-Democracy with systems like SD2-Smartocracy.
> "-M: Then attack it. I say that my points are still standing."
>mG: -Not much for an answer really.
-M: Not much for an attack!
I said: "-M: Because the larger a DD is, the less access that the
average person has to the central administrators and to each other. The
facelessness reduces accountability to one another. L-DD lacks
political accountability, and without social accountability, the L-DD
crumbles. "
-M: You responded with: "-BS theories maninly written in last last
century by republicans defending the system they are living on."
So now I am wrong because I am 'defending a system' that I am allegedly
'living on'?
This is supposed to disprove:
1. Because the larger a DD is, the less access that the average person
has to the central administrators and to each other.
2. The facelessness reduces accountability to one another.
3. L-DD lacks political accountability, and without social
accountability, the L-DD crumbles.
-M: "...Nothing of that is proven[...]"
Where the fuck is your proof? Where the fuck is even your attack?
I offered plausable points, and your casual-dismissal/non-attack is
somehow supposed to work.
>mG: I have written so much about why DD would work in the AD-way that these guys would be standing silent.
-M: So far, AD seems a bit too lemmingized, but I like its
transparency.
It still doesn't seem competitive enough to make for an energetic PD.