Fwd: Re: deep democracy / SD2 / who is right?

Mark parashakti108 at yahoo.com
Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:41:08 -0000

--Thinkers-International@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
--ShadowJD@a... wrote:

> -M: Jay, what I was trying to say is that a benevolent dictatorship 
is sometimes better than a democratic-republic. I would prefer a Jay-
run dictatorship over a population that wanted to impose on freedom 
lovers. If I was a dictator I wouldn't abdicate unless I had an SD2 
process that chose people that I trusted would maintain freedom.
> >J: Laws are necessary for society to function efficiently, for it 
to function at all. Aviation couldn't function unless pilots and air 
traffic controllers obeyed the laws that they all agree are 
necessary, and there are many other examples. Too many laws are just 
as bad as too few. How can we find a balance between overregulation 
and anarchy? One way is to have laws that limit the scope of law. The 
Second Amendment limits the government's power to regulate weapons, 
and the First Amendment limits its power to interfere with religion. 
The government is actually supposed to protect our freedom, not 
threaten it! Laws apply to the government too. Jay

> -M: SD2 is designed to create a community of statecraft experts 
who's job it would be to find the right balance between liberty and 
regulation. Activists would be watching the experts and continually 
shifting their votes to find a balance.

>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>J: Could we call the goal benevolent democracy, or just democracy 
since nobody wants a bad government?

-M: No, Jay, absolutely not - that is way, way too presumptous. I 
would say that the goal of society is *the maximization of 
sustainable happiness*. Whatever form of government is used is a 
*tool* in maximizing this general happiness, and the *quality* of a 
government is determined by this general happiness. *Self-
determination* is strongly correlated to *general happiness* - this 
may be causing the confusion. Correlation and causality are two 
different things. 

-M: Based on what I know, benevolent democracy seems like the best 
*means* to acheive the *goal* of *general happiness*.(Your apparent 
presumptousness has given me ideas on how to better market SD2, 

>J: The problem with experts and activists is that they disagree. 
When the presidents, governors, county commissioners, and senators 
responsible for the people's governments seek experts for advice, 
they often get two or more contradictory options. Activists have a 
lot of enthusiasm and they keep the voters awake, but they aren't 
much help to the government. Right wing activists can't agree with 
left wing activists about economics, pacifists can't agree with 
militarists about how to keep the peace, and scientists can't agree 
with creationists about education. Some experts want to be tougher on 
drug use, and others think there shouldn't be any laws at all. Good 
representatives need to keep all these groups happy somehow, or at 
least spread the unhappiness around fairly. Jay

-M: So, activists don't agree with each other and experts don't agree 
with each other. So, who is right, and how would this be known?

-M: SD2 uses an algorithm that "asks around" for expert opinion, then 
places these top experts in the "hot-seat" of accountability. I am 
still waiting for someone to propose a better system then mine. 

--- End forwarded message ---