Re: [sd-2] Fwd: Re: deep democracy / SD2 / who is right?

MARC HILL sensaru at
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:58:30 -0700 (PDT)

It is not a matter of the system being better, but of
it being more functional. 

deciding is one thing. 

having others follow through on your decisions is

The algorithm can decide, but it cannot inspire others
to follow, nor can it guarantee that those chosen will
be able to inspire. 

That is why its functionality is only a guideline of
the optimality of the network. 

The case in point is the organisation of this group.
If it is not functional in the organisation of this
group, how in the hell is it going to be functional in
the organisation of the planet. 
--- Mark <> wrote:
>, 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, 
> thanks.)
> >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 ---

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around