Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 03/08 02:11 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 02/08 02:30 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 03:25 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 02:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 27/07 00:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 26/07 03:39 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 11/07 00:17 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 10/07 11:14 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 04/07 20:26 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 03/07 17:04 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
Latest posts
- 03/08 02:11 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 02/08 02:30 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 03:25 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 28/07 02:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 27/07 00:36 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 26/07 03:39 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 11/07 00:17 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 10/07 11:14 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 04/07 20:26 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
- 03/07 17:04 +1 Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: L-DD and L-RD, vs SD2 and EC-D
-
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.)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: Lawmaking power.
-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.)
+1
-
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.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: 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.
+1
-
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
- 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.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>>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?
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?…
+1
-
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:
- “Tyrany of the majority” … against the minority.
Examples are:
a. slavery in the American South
b. rise of Nazi germany - “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?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-M: You said that they could be influenced by corrupted influences, 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:
- “Tyrany of the majority” … against the minority.
Examples are:
a. slavery in the American South
b. rise of Nazi germany - “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?
+1
-
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.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>-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: ‘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!
+1
-
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.
- L-DD – popular vote for everything(-2), and ususally has a centralized administration which discourages participatory democracy(-1).
- L-RD – Popular vote(-1) to select representitives(+1). Ususally has a centralized administration which discourages participatory democracy(-1).
- AD – decentralized administration which encourages participatory democracy(+1), but still has the drawback of popular voting(-1).
- 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.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
“-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. "-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.
+1
-
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.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
“-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? "
-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 bedecisive. "
-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.
+1
-
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:
- 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: “…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.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-
-
-
- “Tyrany of the majority” … against the minority.
Examples are:
- “Tyrany of the majority” … against the minority.
Examples are:
-
-
-
-