Re: real-life example
Didn't they have something like this in the Constantinople in the 12th-13th century with the blues and greens under the eastern Holy Roman Empire? Apologies if this is just a folk memory. Thomas Lunde wrote: > Thomas: > > I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to > propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one > assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making > decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, > businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having > opinions and making decisions. > > I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National > Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of > the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. > The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the > individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The > second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required > by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as > whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the > standing committees. > > This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the > dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific > cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian > and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by > all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from > office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in > which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could > participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for > a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced > elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small > increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of > parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. > > This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for > re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery > that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, > ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though > some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has > not proven to be superior. > > If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent > citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least > possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a > particular agenda. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > -Original Message- > From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM > Subject: Re: real-life example > > >At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: > >>- Original Message - > >>From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed > >>>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent > ones. > >>>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, > >>>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited > tenure. > >> > >>Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best > >>skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and > xperience -- > >>not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. > >> > >>Jay > > > >Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A > >broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a > >DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be > >more likely to make a "stupid" choice. > > > >But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability > >of the leader". > > > >In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not > >accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every > >4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick > >the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally > >UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! > > > >Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: > >" a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can > >directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" > > > >Colin Stark > >Vice-President > >Canadians for Direct Democracy > >Vancouver, B.C. > >http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) > > -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swi
Re: real-life example
Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager, I was a little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience that most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by idiots for idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only themselves, the idiots, to blame' With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon desire for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich comes to mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask whether you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or not). If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists? Colin Stark wrote: > At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: > >- Original Message - > >From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed > >>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. > >>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, > >>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. > > > >Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best > >skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience -- > >not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. > > > >Jay > > Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A > broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a > DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be > more likely to make a "stupid" choice. > > But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability > of the leader". > > In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not > accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every > 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick > the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally > UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! > > Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: > " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can > directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" > > Colin Stark > Vice-President > Canadians for Direct Democracy > Vancouver, B.C. > http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) -- Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: The end of work?
This may be late and off-topic, but it would be interesting to see whether it is possible (it may have already been done, I don't know) to produce a variant of the current international GDP accounting system where, as Mr Milne bluntly and correctly puts it, manufactured things are assets and human potential is a liability. I suppose the problem is that noone is going to believe that a nation or society producing excellent evocative poetry is more advanced than one capable of chemical or nuclear warfare. Attempting to cross the public street outside, in a practical manner, I find my path obstructed by large numbers of manufactured but hardly used objects, mostly shiny BMWs, whilst the public facilities available crumble. However, if the good denizens of London believe they must have an uptodate German-manufactured automobile to establish their seriousness in the job market, that is what they will believe. Would it be possible for the futurework list to cooperate to provide an alternative GDP function, allowing these poor harassed commuters who take the subway to work, as the road infrastructure is too poor to allow the use of their expensive machine, to become rich by some variant of the Roman public virtue argument? I know I dream, but you never know. Mark Measday Victor Milne wrote: > I am inclined to agree with Thomas in the interchange below. I don't > have any figures. However, I think this is what happens in the > introduction of a new technology such as railways and the internal > combustion engine: The technology is genuinely labor-saving, and so > everyone wants to have it or has to have it to stay abreast of > business competitors. There is thus a large amount of work created to > fill the demand for the new technology. Moreover, with a very broad > technology it takes a while to discover all the uses; i.e., to create > demands that were not there before. Ultimately the technology is > mature. Virtually every potential user has acquired it. When you are > only replacing old wornout units rather than selling to new markets, > the workforce producing this technology has to be scaled back. It is > then that we discover that relative to the population level the > once-new technology has destroyed more jobs than it has created. I > think too that computer technology is like none other that went before > because of the very generality and breadth of its application. It is > displacing people at throughout the employment spectrum. A lot of > middle managers fell to its onslaught some time ago because it so > increased productivity in data gathering and organization and > interpretation. Bank tellers are vanishing, and supermarket cashiers > will soon join them--how many hundreds of thousands, or millions, of > people are employed in these jobs just in North America? What jobs > will be created for these people in the brave new world of increased > employment through technology that traditional economists believe in? > Name one new job brought in by computer technology that a displaced > welder or cashier could transfer to. If you can name such a job, then > estimate its numbers relative to the vanished jobs. And computers are > not the end of the new technologies. In a recent talk Rifkin said he > believes that the 21st century will be the era of biotechnology. In > his book he does hint without giving any details that the number of > workers in food production may be slashed still further, and food > production will move to a factory setting. To fill in some possible > details (some may think I've read too much science fiction) I have no > difficulty in envisioning factories as highly automated as oil > refineries (i.e., very few employees relative to an immense output) in > which genetically engineered yeasts are grown and processed to produce > passable imitations of virtually any food you can imagine--steak, corn > on the cob, potatoes. Of course there would remain work worth doing > such as nursing and educating children. The question is who is willing > to fund it? As was pointed out in a paper on the CCPA website, under > our present distorted system of accounting, the production and sale of > a golf ball is counted as an addition to the GNP (recorded on the plus > side of the ledger) while the education of a child is counted as a > rather large reduction in the GNP (recorded on the minus side of the > ledger). Until this is changed, there will be not be many worthwhile > jobs for people to find. Victor Milne FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An > anti-neoconservative website > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING > STABLE > at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/ > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
Re: more on simulation ...
Mr Wilson's attempt to carry this mammoth undertaking out should be applauded. Hmm, how do you know you simulated and they didn't? If the output was the same Why would successfully simulating understanding the economy be any different from understanding? I don't understand why the sun goes round the earth (?) every 24 hours but I use it to calculate days by. Isn't the concept of 'understanding' one of those enlightenment terms -like trust, faith and liberty, for example- now superseded by our neo-liberal intuition of our own behaviourism? A friend, a behaviourist political affairs scientist, would be interested to assist in the development of your simulation, on condition that, epistemologically, free will would be excluded from your simulation. I, on the other hand, can only offer the contrary. Edward Weick wrote: > > > "Douglas P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Since my post containing some tentative requirements analysis the > >>silence has been deafening, with even Jay Hanson being mute on the > >>subject. > > > >For my part, I found your post excellent, even inspiring. I marvel > >at your level of enthusiasm. > -Pete vincent > > I, on the other hand, do not. I have seen little evidence that you really > know anything about the global economy that you hope to model. But then > I've never regarded simulation as a substitute for understanding. > > Many years ago, I was in an Aboriginal community in the high Arctic. They > held a dance. They danced and we, the outsiders, danced. They understood > the dance. We did not. We simulated. > > Ed Weick -- Mark Measday __ Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00 'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin __
Re: FW: Re: Simulation
Naively, should the simulation work well and teach lessons in management of the world economy to those looking for that data, how will the simulation recursively model itself within it own simulation? It must be an unknown quantity, no? As the results of its model produce unknown outputs which cannot be input to the model before it is run? I know this is a theoretical rather than practical question, as one can perfectly well produce models of country or economic behaviour which function perfectly well in providing a gross predictivity as to outcomes. However, should these be scaled to the global level and the assumption of success be made, it seems destined to become a problem. pete wrote: > > (A glitch on my dial-in just caused mail to be sent out with this > title > but no body. this is the post which was intended...) > > "Douglas P. Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'd like to write a program to run a simulation of the world economy, > >first to see if Jay's conclusions follow from his own data, and then > >to do a sensitivity analysis to see what are the most important > >variables. > > > >I propose to put this program up on the web in source code form as > >well as compiled binaries, so that everyone can check to see how > >plausible the model is, and can play with it a bit. > > >I do have some expertise in this area, having worked on a simulation > >of the Canadian air traffic control system in Ottawa a while back, > but > >by putting actual source code up on the web I hope to minimize the > >dependence of the model on my own personal expertise. > > > >To do this, I will need some data, and I hope Jay will be willing to > >provide the data underlying his own conclusions. > > > >This is just an idea at the moment, but it sounds like a worthwhile > >project, consistent with my often stated preference for algorithms > >over arguments, and I don't think it will too difficult. What do you > >think? > > This is an approach I have advocated for a long time, so of course > I'm all in favour. However there are some important points to make: > a proper simulation is not a trivial project; I had envisioned it > being the product of a team effort in the order of several man-years. > Most importantly, the simulation will be of no value if it is > algorithm-driven. To reflect the true picture, it must be an FSA > (Finite State Automata) model. Algorithms may be deduced from its > results, but not ordained in its construction. The simulation should > model the actions of individual players, and be iterated over cohorts > over time. A well constructed simulation should be able to model > any form of economy one can imagine, and not be limited by the > constrictive assumptions built into an algorithm-driven simulation. > > By the way, algorithm-based simulations already exist, and are used > regularly by economists, which should be a clear demonstration that > they are no damn good. To see an example, check out the International > Futures model which I believe can still be found at IFS.org. > >-Pete Vincent -- Mark Measday __ Josmarian SA UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00 [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 __
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Go on then, Eva Durant. Wine, Beer or something new? MM Durant wrote: > > In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of > > communication? > > > > The world is not more self-interested than before > but we know more about the pattern of this self-interest and in the > way it works best as a force to integrate and cooperate > humans to live in societies without which they couldn't have become > so successful as a species. > We have more chance to communicate > to the widest of the populations than ever before. > > Eva (for a paradigm-free zone) > > > > MM > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit. So can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding based on some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old dialectic between opposite understandings? MM Thomas Lunde wrote: > >In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of > >communication? > > Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you > feel > there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, > the > master answers "nyet". My point was that when self interest, whether > personal, or national, or your local stockbroker is involved in which > their > answer is related back to "whats the best for me" then you cannot > trust that > answer. For any statement "they" make will become fluid should their > self > interest change. This then becomes the paradigm - lack of trust. > This is > the spiral to chaos. >
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? MM Durant wrote: > It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is > used. > > Eva > > ... > > In my sense of our current historical position, the rational > argument has > > become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which > serves the > > goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be > morally right > > and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the > dominant > > paradigm. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Thomas Lunde > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Ray Harrell's thread is superb, but isn't the problem with science that it is effectively an act of analysis done upon something else than the scientist? As such scientific solutions like the ones listed below solve problems of transport, exchange, sociology and power supply in a narrow sense, but create problems of pollution, social disruption and wastage for others or in other areas. On the other hand, solutions (and that is probably the wrong word) which promote the desirable tend to include the problem-solver and are much more difficult, being usually a consensual redistribution of resources, often looking like nothing happened. Given there is only one finite world, it is odd that more attention is not paid to the fact that most human activity is actually devoted to ensuring (or resisting) intra-generational transfers of resources, disguised as mortgages (transfer of possessions from old to young in exchange for labour), education (transfer of knowledge from old to young), work (transfer of capital to young in exchange for work) etc. Few people speculate as to why or how they are engaged in this chain or these chains. While respecting Mr Harrell's views on the liberating values of art, to which I would add philosophy and just the richness of other people, there seems no reason to speculate that humans are globally in control of their fate - Jay Hanson's game management dilemma, positing some wise elders who will solve it, was one Plato tried and failed at - and most people interest themselves in some chosen or enforced diversions in the space between birth and death. You can't escape, unless you are one of those who find religion or eqanimity in solitude. I have always liked Rousseau's comment that man is born free and is everywhere in chains, enslaving himself, perhaps to his necessary condition of fear as a kind of temporary pimple on a decreasingly green planet Mark Measday Geneva Switzerland ______ Mark Measday UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420 tel/fax:0044.181.747.9167 France tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92/0033.450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Ray E. Harrell wrote: Sorry guys, but considering the history of people who have "solved" the problems of the past like highways, nuclear power, the "free market", the buffalo, the Indians, the internal combustion engine, the Concorde, the economy, all with out looking at the big picture, makes me not look to science as the great parent or authority for all things that have to do with life. The simple fact is that science has a history with the wolf that makes trusting them tough at times. It was science as a tool that fascilitated changes in industrial practices for the better. But it often was the morality of religion that made them use the science. As Mike Hollinshead has pointed out on many occasions as he described the actions of the non-conformist industrialists who were Quaker. Science wants to take credit for them, but they no more deserve that credit than the piano does for the pianist. On the other hand there are many scientists like Mengele the beast who were doing serious science that was immoral, just as economics likes to skip Marx and Lenin as children of their best motives. While in this country genocide has been propagated in the name of science while being protected by the propagation of ignorance. Making such a royal mess all in the name of the various departments of science, seems like those connected to it would exhibit at least a bone of humility. But alas all of that muscle is calcium carbonate. I am not convinced that the Messiah exists but this I am convinced of, that that Individual would not be found in any one area of human professionalism. I realize Eva doesn't like the word but Synergy or the Big Picture is what it is all about for me. If we have to have science acting as the U.S. Cavalry on this, then let it be the science of healing. I think the old medical law, "hurt no one," would make a far better rule in this case. Or if that fails, than use the old liability "Law of Blood" which says that any harm that comes from any action will be paid to those who are harmed from the pockets and lives of those who did the harming. If it is a life then a life is owed the clan that lost the member. They can decide whether it is capital punishment or whether they will just adopt the member and make him a sewer worker for the rest of his life. All that being said, I agree that Jay's analysis is correct. In fact I can find speeches that go back 200 years predicting the coming catastrophe as a result of European land use policies. I have the speeches in my library. Speeches from men in paint and feathers from the U.S. to the jungles of Brazil and Bolivia. I might add that I am not including the marginal glosses in the Chief Seattle
Re: What planet are you proposing for this experiment?
Is the game manager a member of the herd? If not, what is he? If he is,
and minimizing the aggregate suffering of the herd involves culling,
does he cull himself? Logically yes and actually no? Is this not the
reappearance of what might be termed the fascist fallacy?
regards,
mark measday
Jay Hanson wrote:
> From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> I agree with you Eva. In a different world, with different
> animals,
> >> Democracy would be geat.
> >
> > IF NOT US, WHO?
> > IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
>
> (a) The first step in successful problem solving is NOT having a
> hallucination ("vision") as is the current fashion. (Gee, I am in
> love with
> the idea of Democracy, so let's do it.)
>
> (b) The first step in successful problem solving IS to analyze the
> nature
> of the problem (ask any engineer or systems analyst).
>
> (c) With respect to politics among animals (believe-it-or-not,
> people are
> animals), think of it as a "game management" problem. The goal of the
> game
> manager is to minimize the aggregate suffering of the herd.
>
> If one can simply accept a, b, and c above, then one will have made
> more
> progress towards a sustainable and just future than anyone else has
> thus
> far.
>
> Jay
--
__
Mark Measday
UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420 tel/fax:0044.181.747.9167
France tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92/0033.450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
