[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_95/index.rss [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/index.rss Mark Rosst <p><p>[...] > >> ><del>M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :</del>( > >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?</p> <blockquote> <p>mG:[...] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans…</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: Which is why, with <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.<br/> <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S is <strong>democratic</strong>-republicanism.</p> <blockquote> <p>mG:...with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, <span class="caps">TOP</span> or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.</p> </blockquote> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation…</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: ”...broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in <span class="caps">SD2</span> 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 <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is <strong><span class="caps">SD2</span>-S</strong>, which has specialists for every issue,<br/> so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-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.)</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.<br/> Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.</p> <blockquote> <p>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.</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,<br/> and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.<br/> So this is a point against you, and not me.</p> <blockquote> <p>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD. Just BS theory frankly.</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: <span class="caps">EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION</span>, WITHOUT <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, HAS <span class="caps">BEEN</span> CORRUPTION <span class="caps">ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE</span>.</p> </blockquote> <p>mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.<br/> This is why <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-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.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -It will be impossible within a true <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully <span class="caps">TOP</span> since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: I envision <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S to be <span class="caps">TOP</span> complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?</p> </blockquote> <p>-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.<br/> This is a result of lemmingism.</p> <p>shanti<br/> Mark, Seattle <span class="caps">WA USA</span></p> <p><del>-<sub></del>-</sub><del>—</del>-<del>—</del><sub><del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>—</del>-<del>—</del>-</sub><del>—</del>-<del>-<sub></del>-</sub><del>—</del>~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a> <del><sub>-</del>-<del>—</del>-<del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>—</del></sub><del>—</del><sub><del>—</del>-<del></sub>-</del>~<del>-</del></p> </div></p> [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-12-05 23:42:08+0100 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_96/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_96/index.rss Magnus <p><blockquote> <p>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.<br/> And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.</p> </blockquote> <p>-OK, looks fine to me.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><del>M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :</del>( 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.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-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?</p> </blockquote> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be anonymous.<br/> And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, <span class="caps">TOP</span> or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation…</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: ”...broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by <span class="caps">SD2</span>-S.</p> </blockquote> <p>-Well, whats mainly encouraged in <span class="caps">SD2</span> is voting for a rep. I would say. AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a delegate.<br/> But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be options in a future <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG:...and decisions taken by all.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: <span class="caps">WTF</span> for?</p> </blockquote> <p>-For the same reasons as above.</p> <blockquote> <p>-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</p> </blockquote> <p>revolutionary Ben Franklin.)</p> <p>-Ben was wrong and he knew it. He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power.<br/> There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither accountable to each other.<br/> So they can go and elect Hitler.<br/> By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD.<br/> Just BS theory frankly.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: <span class="caps">EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION</span>, WITHOUT <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, HAS <span class="caps">BEEN</span> CORRUPTION <span class="caps">ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE</span>.</p> </blockquote> <p>-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes.<br/> Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?</p> <blockquote> <p>-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.</p> </blockquote> <p>-It will be impossible within a true <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully <span class="caps">TOP</span> since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7.<br/> Concentate on solving that instead.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> </blockquote> <p>-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?</p> <p><del>-<sub></del>-</sub><del>—</del>-<del>—</del><sub><del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>—</del>-<del>—</del>-</sub><del>—</del>-<del>-<sub></del>-</sub><del>—</del>~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a> <del><sub>-</del>-<del>—</del>-<del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>-</sub></del>-<del>-<sub></del>-<del>—</del></sub><del>—</del><sub><del>—</del>-<del></sub>-</del>~<del>-</del></p> </div></p>