Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: predicted vs. actual satisfaction / don't impose on a right minority

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    ... NOT a solution which would yield the highest level of satisfaction among people; in this case, method C? ... level of satisfaction? This is only what the
    Message 1 of 35 , Apr 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --"denis bider" wrote:
      > > > D: Is it acceptable for experts to choose a solution which is
      NOT a solution which would yield the highest level of satisfaction
      among people; in this case, method C?

      > > -M: Who says that the people's choice would produce the greatest
      level of satisfaction? This is only what the people would PREDICT
      would produce the greatest level of satisfaction.

      >D: I am aware of that distinction. In the above context, I meant
      immediate satisfaction with the choice being made. Eventual
      effectiveness of that choice was not part of the above question.
      Rather, it was part of another one later on. To re-clarify the above
      question: - if we agree that Condorcet is a method that relatively
      objectively reflects the choice that the crowd (not the "mob", but
      the people collectively, polled individually) want to make;...

      -M: It looks to me like a sophisticated form of polling that extracts
      a lot of information out of the participants.

      >D:...-then, putting completely aside whether that choice is wrong or
      correct; - is it philosophically correct for anyone to block that
      choice and force another one, for whatever reason?

      -M: Doesn't majoritarianism block the choice of 49%? There is a
      reason that NO nations are organized as democracies. Most nations are

      >D: I'm not quite convinced that the mobs in the French revolution
      had a nationwide vote over whether they should ransack and loot
      before they actually did so. I tend to think that, if asked to make
      their decision in a poll, ransacking and looting is not quite what
      they would choose to do.

      -M: My understanding is that the direct-democracy set up conditions
      of a weak state underwhich the people couldn't be controlled.

      >D: Should the people; when polled correctly and their individual
      opinions aggregated objectively; be treated as adults, or kids?
      Adults, as in people with freedom of choice, even when it is wrong;
      or kids, as in little beings requiring parental protection?

      -M: They should definately be treated as KIDS. Time and time again
      the masses prove themselves to be lemmings. They SHOULD NOT impose on
      a right minority! Never again should a war-driving Bushmonkey be
      elected, nor should a majority impose slavery. Denis, please kick the
      populist trip.

      >D: Furthermore, who's sure that the parents are right, and when does
      the kid qualify to become an adult?

      -M: I hope that this is a parallel to SD2. In SD2, votes are
      endorsements of consent to be governed. The PageRank algorithm, by
      following the chains of consent, finds the center of consent in a
      human trust network. SD2 tries to find the rightest "parents"
      possible. People can be adults in their private lives. Politically,
      the lemmings are in need of supervision to keep from imposing on
      right minorities.

      -Mark, Seattle WA USA
    • Mark
      ... several weeks at a time, and analysing the results and their volatility, before SD-2 is actually used. denis ... needed, then the manditory number of
      Message 35 of 35 , Jun 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --"denis bider" wrote:
        > > >D: This means running SD-2 as a "shadow" method in a group for
        several weeks at a time, and analysing the results and their
        volatility, before SD-2 is actually used. denis

        > > -M: A BUFFER? I doubt SD2 would need this. If more stability is
        needed, then the manditory number of candidates per ballot would be

        >D: I think you misunderstood. While I did also consider running SD-2
        in buffered mode (for example, kicking the directors only if their
        rank stays too low for a month), this isn't what I meant above. I
        meant that the stability of SD-2 should first be shown by an
        experiment, and above I describe one. I wonder though what you would
        think of my idea of waiting for a while before kicking established
        directors out of office. Around here, the expectation has become
        standard that a new government needs 100 days to truly bootstrap
        itself before it can really begin doing work. Even if the 100-day
        figure is higher than reality, I believe there is a non-zero figure
        which is correct. If leaders are replaced more frequently than this
        period, no actual work will be taking place.

        -M: So you think that an instability could occur due to people
        reacting to new people rising in the ranks? This might happen if SD2
        was introduced suddenly. An observation period might be prudent.

        -M: There would be only five directors - they can have a revolving
        door. A bulk of all of the work done would be by the supporting
        advisory body. They could be a comingled body of judges, executives,
        and legislative advisors. Their relations could remain fairly stable
        unless someone falls below a certain rank level.

        -M: The directors' main job would be to oversee debates with
        impartiality, ask intelligent questions, and to sign laws and
        executive orders. No exclusive staff would be attached to them. They
        would be freebirds who could fly in and out. They might not even
        change their physical offices, only their work-flows, powers and
        scheduals would change.

        >D: In a nationwide deployment, do you really think it possible to
        manage with no buffer?

        -M: Yes. I would imagine that a statecraft community would already be
        organized and stable before the official turnover. I would imagine
        that most of the top ranked politicians would infiltrate into an old-
        constitutional system, and that the turnover would be smooth and

        >D: Recall that Italy has had more than 50 governments since 1945,
        and that this is generally not perceived as overly effective. Best
        regards, denis

        -M: They have many competing parties. They have instabilities that
        SD2 doesn't have. SD2 would build much more coherence.

        -Mark Rosst
        -Seattle WA USA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.