5 ms·

>This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't reall

>This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring? >and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system. Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure? >We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals. Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public. Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system? >> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s >Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality. I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis: Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way. > Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] >It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true. Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more? Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad). https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-political-systems https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol... https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT01.pdf https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF] https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/wpf36governance.pdf https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF] https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-economic-growth-democracy-myth/ https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ... In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])? I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that-dragons-don-t-exist-but-while-this-simplistic https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

mistermann 5y ago
> It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring? Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy. > Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system. I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that. > Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure? It's an idea worth considering imo. > Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). 110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways. > That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public. Indeed we do - whether this design "works" as intended/perceived is another matter though. > Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system? I think "we the people" would benefit in many ways from a serious first principles based investigation into a complete rewrite of democracy. At the very least, it would be an extremely educational and maybe even ~enlightening undertaking, depending on how one went about it of course (putting The Experts in charge might not be an ideal approach, for obvious reasons). > I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way. > Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Has the truth been revealed? > Perhaps you should learn more? Surely! And perhaps you should as well. > Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist. > I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad). I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows. > In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? I consider such things to be unknown - if one would like knowledge, then there are no shortages of examples of how to go about acquiring it - this scenario is surely trickier than many, but human beings have demonstrated themselves to be quite clever, when they set their mind to something. > Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])? I am open to all ideas, but have a bias towards competent coordination in complex systems. > I look forward to having a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you. Thank you for the kind words, and I look forward to it as well.

mistermann 5y ago

> It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring? Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy. > Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system. I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that. > Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure? It's an idea worth considering imo. > Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). 110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways. > That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public. Indeed we do - whether this design "works" as intended/perceived is another matter though. > Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system? I think "we the people" would benefit in many ways from a serious first principles based investigation into a complete rewrite of democracy. At the very least, it would be an extremely educational and maybe even ~enlightening undertaking, depending on how one went about it of course (putting The Experts in charge might not be an ideal approach, for obvious reasons). > I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way. > Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Has the truth been revealed? > Perhaps you should learn more? Surely! And perhaps you should as well. > Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist. > I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad). I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows. > In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? I consider such things to be unknown - if one would like knowledge, then there are no shortages of examples of how to go about acquiring it - this scenario is surely trickier than many, but human beings have demonstrated themselves to be quite clever, when they set their mind to something. > Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])? I am open to all ideas, but have a bias towards competent coordination in complex systems. > I look forward to having a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you. Thank you for the kind words, and I look forward to it as well.