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: 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 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 "Is it wrong for me to be guided in my actions by the
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: 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: 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) Off topic....
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut off and why do you want to do it? Alternatively, and more practically, organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to come, all the better. Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought. Kind regards, Mark Measday Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: Mark Measday wrote: 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". [snip] I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in part based on thinking about how they exploit their students as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to that famous Koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? The student should simply amputate one of the master's hands, so that the master could learn. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ 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]
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: 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 speech. We had no trouble developing the environment. We simply admitted that it
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]
__
