Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 13:08 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 25/11 00:54 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 24/11 15:53 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 22:29 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 10:14 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Latest posts
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 13:08 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 25/11 00:54 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 24/11 15:53 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 22:29 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 10:14 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
-
At 08:24 PM 11/3/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: I am a democrat, so I want a majority to have voting rights. >And SD2-S is just RD, so don’t use scary language like “deprive of >voting rights”. >Booga wooga!
Electoral representative democracy deprives people of “representation” , unless it is very fine-grained Proportional Representation, and also of “voting rights” as well. Of course one way of looking at Delegable Proxy is as “very fine grained PR.”
The assumption of a classical proxy is that the proxy represents you when you cannot be represented yourself.
In DP, your proxy may vote for you when you cannot vote for yourself. The common-law proxy is exercising a right for you that you could also exercise yourself. Mark is setting up a DP system that divorces the voter from the right to vote directly. Yes, this deprives the voter of the right to vote directly, and this is obvious if his system were implemented in an organization that presently, say, holds meetings and any member may attend and vote.
Standard proxy does not do this. You have to make a rule preventing voters from voting directly. I’d call that “deprivation” of the right to vote.
The fact that voters are more deprived now, in most public, governmental systems, does not change that. Town Meeting government still allows the direct right to vote.
-M: All of the DP systems that have been suggested here(other than SD2-S) have given the voter the choice of a DD vote or an RD vote. Why the OR?(I have asked over-and-over again without a satisfactory response).
Because the right to vote directly makes it easy for the voter to override a proxy selection without cancelling it. That’s one reason. Another is that when people join, they are not forced to name a proxy. Mark also turns this upside down.
We don’t want to force members to do anything…. They can join, read the deliberations, and vote, if they choose. They can just vote without reading the deliberations if they are so foolish. They will probably be able to find low-level meetings where they can join and immediately join in deliberation.
Very much, we want FA/DP to be open. And this also is why the FA does not take controversial positions. It develops consensus, if possible, but it does not itself make the decision of “what is consensus.” It does not need to. That decision is made by the caucuses that decide to act.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
Mark wrote: >-M: I am a democrat, so I want a majority to have voting rights. >And SD2-S is just RD, so don’t use scary language like “deprive of >voting rights”. Booga wooga!
L: Electoral representative democracy deprives people of “representation” , unless it is very fine-grained Proportional Representation, and also of “voting rights” as well. [...]is that the proxy represents you when you cannot be represented yourself. In DP, your proxy may vote for you when you cannot vote for yourself. The common-law proxy is exercising a right for you that you could also exercise yourself. Mark is setting up a DP system that divorces the voter from the right to vote directly.
-M: You said above “deprive of voting rights”. I think you meant to say: “deprives the voter of the right to vote directly”. This isn’t as scary.
-M: SD2-S does have DD features for:L: Yes, this deprives the voter of the right to vote directly, and this is obvious if his system were implemented in an organization that presently, say, holds meetings and any member may attend and vote.
- holding issues in deliberation
- setting decision thresholds
- If generalists call for a referendum
So saying “deprives the voter of the right to vote directly” isn’t
entirely true.
But decisions are still made by the specialist vote - this can be a majority, but it is also RD.
L: Standard proxy does not do this. You have to make a rule preventing voters from voting directly. I’d call that “deprivation” of the right to vote. The fact that voters are more deprived now, in most public, governmental systems, does not change that. Town Meeting government still allows the direct right to vote.
-M: SD2-S does allow for DD, but only through RD processes. And the RD decision thresholds are set by DD.
-M: All of the DP systems that have been suggested here(other than SD2-S) have given the voter the choice of a DD vote or an RD vote. Why the OR?(I have asked over-and-over again without a satisfactory response).
L: Because the right to vote directly makes it easy for the voter to override a proxy selection without cancelling it. That’s one reason. Another is that when people join, they are not forced to name a proxy.
-M: ’...forced...’ – they name proxies, or underdogs are chosen based on rank distributions. There is no ‘FORCE’ here – booga wooga! ’...override a proxy selection without cancelling it.’ - So the proxy stays, but a DD vote is rendered instead. But again, why the override?
Why not render both a DD vote and a RD vote?
This is what SD2-S does.
DD controls the deliberation and thresholds,
and RD controls the decisions.
Why do otherwise?L: Mark also turns this upside down. We don’t want to force members to do anything….
-M: The have forced arbitrary overrides, correct? By contrast, SD2-S keeps DD and RD separate.
L: They can join, read the deliberations, and vote, if they choose. They can just vote without reading the deliberations if they are so foolish. They will probably be able to find low-level meetings where they can join and immediately join in deliberation.[...]
-M: SD2-S has these feature, too.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
DD controls the deliberation and thresholds, and RD controls the decisions.
Why do otherwise?-Just becuse there might be some decisions that can be against the will of the people or it’s rights.
In those cases the only guarantee for no misuse from any rep. is to allow DD, at least on these important issues.--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
M: DD controls the deliberation and thresholds, and RD controls the decisions. Why do otherwise?
mG: -Just becuse there might be some decisions that can be against the will of the people or it’s rights.
-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.mG: In those cases the only guarantee for no misuse from any rep. is to allow DD, at least on these important issues.
-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.-What do you mean?
-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.-How has DD a power hiearchy? How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few. With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, the issue goes into deliberation.
mG: What do you mean?
-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD, meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption. SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.
mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?
-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
mG: How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few.
-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.
-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, the issue goes into deliberation. mG: What do you mean?
-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.-I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at 40%? In a specific issue?
Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more direct votes in the issue or what?
Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote? What is deliberation in SD2?mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?
-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
-Show me one in AD and will comment on it.
-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.-Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in society from the base.mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.
-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.
-This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did I win this?
Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, the issue goes into deliberation. mG: What do you mean?
-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%, meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.
mG: -I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at 40%? In a specific issue?
-M: Yes for both.
mG: Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more direct votes in the issue or what? Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote?
-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter supportmG: What is deliberation in SD2?
-M: With SD2, this would occur if there was a split vote among directors.
With SD2-S, this occurs when specialist threshold is met, but popular threshold isn’t.mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?
-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.
-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison. What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.
mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :(mG: The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in society from the base.
-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -
OR ELSE.
By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.
-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.
mG: -This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did I win this? Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.
-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support-Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning and how are they set?
If not, how can the people reactr before a corrupt leader decides soemthing together with his group thinking partners in the top?mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.
-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.-True, but any idea we discuss will in reality be implemeted in a country by the AD-strategy -to be adapted inside a party which get elected into a parliament.
Any other strategies I see fruitless since the established power structures never will let any revolutionary different democary systems in by free will.
On the oher hand, all decisions taken inside a new party can be fair, just and according to TOP.
And this is what is to be discussed, not the rest of the world. A parallell: If a good system finally would make it and take over a whole contry one could always argue the the UN is still ruled bu other power structures etc etc, but this is not an argument for not using a better system in a specific contry, city or party.mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :(-This is claimed by you, please proove it. I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably wouldn’t agree with you.
-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of
society -
-But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation and decisions taken by all.
OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.
-Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence for it or remain silent.
-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.
-The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history so you are coming with more BS. Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue. In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support
mG: -Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning and how are they set?
-M: Have you seen my input field?
—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—--Name [_____]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _____
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): [________]
Decision threshold [60]%... (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)
...of a required [20]%+5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)+5, default 20%+5)
-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.
-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented. As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.
mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :(mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably wouldn’t agree with you.
-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?
-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -
mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation…
-M: ”...broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.
mG:...and decisions taken by all.
-M: WTF for?
OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.
mG: -Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence for it or remain silent.
-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)
-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.
mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…
-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.
mG:...so you are coming with more BS.
-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.
mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.
-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.-OK, looks fine to me.
M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :( mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably wouldn’t agree with you.-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?
-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be anonymous.
And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation…
-M: ”...broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.
-Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a delegate.
But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be options in a future TOP organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.mG:...and decisions taken by all.
-M: WTF for?
-For the same reasons as above.
-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the
revolutionary Ben Franklin.)
-Ben was wrong and he knew it. He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power.
There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither accountable to each other.
So they can go and elect Hitler.
By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD.
Just BS theory frankly.mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…
-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.
-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes.
Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.
-It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7.
Concentate on solving that instead.mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.
-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.
-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?
--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
[...] > >> >
M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :( > >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > > wouldn’t agree with you. > > >-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves > are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? > Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?mG:[...] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans…
-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.
SD2-S is democratic-republicanism.mG:...with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.
-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.
mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation…
-M: ”...broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.
mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a delegate. But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be options in a future TOP organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.
-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is SD2-S, which has specialists for every issue,
so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)
mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.
-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.
Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.mG: He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power. There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither accountable to each other. So they can go and elect Hitler.
-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,
and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.
So this is a point against you, and not me.mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD. Just BS theory frankly.
-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.
mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…
-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.
mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?
-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.
This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.
mG: -It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.
-M: I envision SD2-S to be TOP complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.
mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.
-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.
mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?
-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.
This is a result of lemmingism.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-