Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
ec: Ok, I’m trying this as an exercise of my patience. Again, I want binding referendum, held using any method and threshold
previously chosen by the legal rules in place. Obviously there are matters of majorities, yes, and this is perfectly fine although it can of course lead to tyranny of the majority. Well, using directors and ranks, if a majority of the population actually want something, so much that they will only vote for the one party that support it, will that not be a tyranny of the majority?
-M: No, because SD2 isn’t majoritarian. The vote has been filtered. If the majority is aligned with this vote, it is just a correlation, and is not causal.
-M: I imagine that SD2-directors would usually want people to vote directly on issues.
ec: How nice of them! I don’t want directors to allow a referendum on an issue, I want every issue to be a referendum!
-M: A dog wants to shit on your bed, and a bear wants to raid your
refridgerator.
Wanting is not the issue, philosophical justification is the issue.
Why direct representation always?
Are you representing an opinion against representation?
Or did you get voters to approve of your opinion?
ec: You want a government of the few, I want a parliament of the many.
-M: No, you want government of the 50%+1. I want government of everyone who has recieved even ONE write in vote from someone else.
ec: How strange that despite your words it is directors that will decide issues, not popular votes!
-M: Yes, but they are ‘under the gun’ of ALL the voters, and will lose
rank if they don’t represent correctly.
By contrast, you SHIT on the 50%-1.
ec: I do not want to be directed by snobs/pricks! Understand that?
-M: If so, then why do you want to be directed by the snob/prick representitives of the 50%+1?
ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?
-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are still
the top administrators.
These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings.
Enjoy.
ec: Do you understand what I want???
-M: Another Blood-Bath?
ec: Indirect transmission has always been less optimal than direct. Want to discuss that?
-M: This does relate to centrality algorithms – the MAIN topic that I have been wanting to discuss.
ec: Wow, I hardly believe you there (hint hint, this is sarcasm)
-M: Lets continue.
-M: There are goals and there are means to achieve goals – hopefully a voter and a representitive would be aligned in fundamental goals, but a statecraft-expert-representitive would have more knowledge in the means to acheive the goal – this is more direct because the expert is closer to the instruments of administration.
ec: Again, I don’t want representatives,…
-M: Too bad. You will get your ‘snob/prick representitives’ regardless of the system that you have.
Now the only issue is if they will be selected by the lemmings or not.
ec: I want to vote on issues. I want everybody to vote on all issues!!!
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish. I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
-M: No, your way AUTOMATICLY discounts anyone in the 50%-1, and waters down those in the 50%+1 in a sea of lemminghood. By contrast, with SD2, ALL minority opinion counts, and someone gains rank with only one vote from anyone.
ec: Again, push those representatives aside, and give me issues.
-M: We can’t do that. Reps seem manditory.
ec: It’s on issues that voices have to be heard, representatives are your way to become our leader (or so it seems),…
-M: Maybe you will get SD2-directorship. SD2 is just math – I don’t know how I would get it to select me alone.
ec:…not a way to decide on things.
-M: The least hierarchal way to decide on things is with the lemming-50%+1 – but this makes the lemmings representitive of their philosophical superiors(the lemmings ALWAYS outnumber the philosophers.) This is EVIL because it puts the inferior in a hierarchy over the superior.
-M: You just DODGED. The fact is you can’t take an authoritative position against authority without creating what is called a
performative contradiction.
ec: Cough cough, let me be the judge of the positions I want to take. And let’s try a bit of logic on your first statement:
-M: Lets go.
M: Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself? If not, then your position is not authoritative.
ec: * speak as a philosopher king or have a not authoritative position
-M: I did catch that. You are still taking an authoritative position against authority.
-M:(You dodged again.)1. I created SD2.2. I achieved spiritual awakening.3. I whupped your dodge-monkey-ass for your own good.
ec: I can’t believe how egotist this makes you look!!!
-M: If so, what are you going to do about it? Defeat me in a debate?
ec: Plus your interest in ranks…
-M: Your voting for administrators in a DD system would create rank.
Of course I am interested in ranks, as everybody interested in
governance should be.
Now the issue is:
What is the best centrality algorithm to create rank?
ec:…and philosopher kings have me wonder about your thirst for power.
-M: Power happens regardless of the system. The issue now is: Which centrality algorithm generates the most legitimate power?
ec: Are you ambitious?
-M: Yes, I do want to proliferate SD2.
ec: Do you want to direct others’ lives?
-M: No, I want to keep the lemmings from directing our lives.
Do you want to be ‘Lord of the Lemmings’?
The highest administrator of a DD system?
ec: Nice of you to finally understand one thing about what others can propose. Of course calling a “Markov chain” what is merely a directed graph does look like a bit of mathematical onanism.
-M: And? Is this a case against PageRank?(please don’t dodge.)
ec: Onanism would be directly against the personality you project.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
ec: Against the repetitions you use and abuse.
-M: I am an expert in mind-control, and the technique I use is a “shock-and-awe-truth-assault” method. In person, I am more polite.
M: So what is your centrality algorithm?
ec: One man one voice, ever heard about it?
-M: We both have this. But you want to arbitrarily limit the Markov-chains, then DODGE your rationale.
ec: I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way to alleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue.
The graphs are not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) to another one, etc.
-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this. Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
ec: Can you tell me where the difference lies between the proxy delegate system and the page rank algo?
-M: With PageRank, there is no arbitrary limit to the depth of the Markov chain. This is why I think that PageRank is the least arbitrary of ALL ALGORITHMS.
ec: Transitive delegations?
-M: I imagine that the general directors would delegate to specialists
for specific issues.
Is this what you are asking?
ec: Do you have any idea how complex those things are to implement? I’ve been thinking about it since 1997, and am still having troubles with delegation cycles which look fine on paper, but are a bitch to manage. Of course I could just forbid them and only manage a nice tree…
-M: Let Pagerank do all of the work.
ec: Great then! I’m glad to see it’s all already programed!
-M: There is still more work that can be done to make implimenting SD2 more efficient.
ec: Oh, there might be a bit of tweaking here and there, but you’ll manage it all by yourself without a hint of a sweat!!! :)
-M: Cracking the whip can be a bit exhausting.
ec: Ok, let me show you where the difference is, well, except for the director and rank bullshits which I definitely hate: * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person
-M: One point missed – this voting power doesn’t arbitrarily stop at this first order person, but it continues on to other delegatespotentially ad infinitum(unless it finds a loop, which it does with real world data) – the idea here is to preserve minority voting poweras much as possible.
ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?
-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote or
more?
If its just a single vote, then you are just layering a first-order
algorithm.
-M: SD2 would allow for your system. I imagine that directors would usually want people to vote on all issues, and would weight each issue by its popular rank and by its PageRank. If I was a director, I would usually hold an issue in debate until the popular rank was on the same side of an issue as the PageRank.
ec: How nice of you, oh great leader,…
-M: Do you take a leadership position against leadership?
ec:..to deign considering the populace and its whims. Aren’t we lucky to have you, instead of having the greatest number to directly choose what they want.
-M: Yes, the idea is to protect the 50%-1.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
What else do you boast about?
I am no rocket scientist, but a 33 years old software engineer who happen to also have a degree in mechanical engineering.
Who are you mister elitist? Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable? So much so that the ideas you could otherwise present have no chance to advance?
Oh, a gem!!! The only thing of some interest you have said for a long time.ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are stillthe top administrators.These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings.Enjoy.
The answer to this very real problem: P2P.
No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible.
Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish.I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
(laughs… at you)
A delegate can also delegate his voice and the voices he represents to another delegate. No limit.I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way toalleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue. The graphsare not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) toanother one, etc.-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this.Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
All the votes he represents. No limit.ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote ormore?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?
-M: Do you know that your attidude is more disageeable than mine?
ec: So much so that the ideas you could otherwise present have no chance to advance?
-M: My ideas already are advancing.
ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?
-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are still the top administrators. These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings. Enjoy.
ec: Oh, a gem!!! The only thing of some interest you have said for a long time.
-M: Your wise-ass attidude is disagreeable. You are the one that starts this.
ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders. Computers can’t do this.
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish. I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
ec: (laughs… at you)
-M: I googled it. Did you spell it correctly? I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say, and you are being didrespectful and dishonorable. WTF?
I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way toalleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue. The graphsare not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) toanother one, etc.
-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this. Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
ec: A delegate can also delegate his voice and the voices he represents to
another delegate. No limit.
ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?
-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote or more?
ec: All the votes he represents. No limit
-M: Then he is a legislative representitive. This is your ‘snob/prick’ and he will cut deals with the top administrator, who is also one of your ‘snob/pricks’.
The difference between your ‘snob/pricks’ and mine is that yours are chosen by the lemmings.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:36:37PM -0700, Mark wrote:
You mean that I am disrespectful to you?ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?-M: Do you know that your attidude is more disageeable than mine?
I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting, your lack of consistency and your repetitive use of derogatory words (like lemming or dodge monkey).
I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
An employee can do that.ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders.Computers can’t do this.
There is nothing in a state that a parliament can not do!
There are delegates, yes, and I’m sure some will be pricks/snobs, yes, yet they are delegates which can be changed and even overridden any time!ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by anothername. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislativerepresentitives.
Don’t like what your delegate in foreign affairs is doing? Then you can:
Same with all other issues.
Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:
Vigilance is key.
I laughed mostly because you spelled masturbation incorrectly while wondering if onanism was actually correct. Plus it is a way for me to relax :)-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?ec: (laughs… at you)-M: I googled it. Did you spell it correctly? I am trying to figure outwhat you are trying to say, and you are being didrespectful anddishonorable. WTF?
Try again on google, the first answer is correct, as are the next ones… (onanism is equivalent to masturbation, although historically it is mostly a contraception method used by onan: the coïtus interruptus)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?
-M: Do you know that your attitude is more disageeable than mine?
ec: You mean that I am disrespectful to you?
-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
ec: I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…
-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not? You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is not how to serve humanity.
ec:…your lack of consistency…
-M: Where?
ec…and your repetitive use of derogatory words…
-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
ec:..(like lemming or dodge monkey).
-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I am trying to proliferate.
ec: I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only one who should change.
ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders. Computers can’t do this.
ec: An employee can do that. There is nothing in a state that a parliament can not do!
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,
usually a PM.
And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for each
issue?
Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is an
unavoidable job.)
ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
ec: There are delegates, yes, and I’m sure some will be pricks/snobs, yes,
yet they are delegates which can be changed and even overridden any time! Don’t like what your delegate in foreign affairs is doing? Then you can:
-M: SD2 has these options. But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs. I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe by accumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board of directors.
ec: Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:
-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of the
accumulative voting.
There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be a
powerful anti-corruption mechanism.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 08:58:28AM -0700, Mark wrote:
I consider that your repetitive use of derogatory words toward me and most of humanity is insulting.You mean that I am disrespectful to you?-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
Can you stop it please?
It’s worse than that, if you are truly all the things you are boasting about, you should in fact shut up about it!!!I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not?
On the contrary, you are boasting and displaying what are unverifiable chunks of immodesty.
So much so, that I’m trying to be nicer, fearing you may just be in some sort of mental situation. This kind of thing happens and I would not want to be any burden on that…
Are you…?
You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is nothow to serve humanity.
I’m interested in the people I encounter. Sometimes some are agreeable, modest, rational…
your lack of consistency…-M: Where?
Again again again, funny how you can make an ass out of yourself. Where is your whip to shape me up?and your repetitive use of derogatory words…-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
Ok, I’m calling on your bluff. Who are you??? Any online CV? Any online presence besides here?
Derogatory terms, lack of respect. Plus boasting about your knowledge of “truth” that you dutifully “proliferate”...(like lemming or dodge monkey).-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I amtrying to proliferate.
Are you the messiah? An apostle?
I’m trying to be nice. I don’t know you, but wondering…I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only onewho should change.
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,usually a PM.And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for eachissue?Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is anunavoidable job.)
Tell me what duties require a top administrator… Right now I don’t see any of them that can not be managed by an employee, but I could be wrong.
Delegates can be considered as some sort of representative, yes.I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name.
And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
P2P servers? Do I need to go through the term to explain it to you?
Ad hoc, what a great word!!! It makes all the difference with your ranked directors who decide on all issues.* change delegate* directly voteSame with all other issues.-M: SD2 has these options.But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs.I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe byaccumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board ofdirectors.
In my mind, the most important matters will rise in the public consciousness, and will become referendum involving most of the population. All other issues rely on delegates, who alleviate that burden.
Ad hoc yes :)
Ranked hierarchies? Where do you see that?Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:* opacity* manipulation* corruption* …Vigilance is key.-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of theaccumulative voting.
This is not EC-D, but proxy delegates, or liquid democracy, or just DD with the possibility of transitive delegations on each issue.
There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be apowerful anti-corruption mechanism.
Elites can’t be corrupted???
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
You mean that I am disrespectful to you?
-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
ec: I consider that your repetitive use of derogatory words toward me and most of humanity is insulting.
Can you stop it please?
-M: The truth is something that you need. When you accept it, it will no longer hurt.
I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…
-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not?
ec: It’s worse than that, if you are truly all the things you are boasting about, you should in fact shut up about it!!! On the contrary, you are boasting and displaying what are unverifiable chunks of immodesty.
-M: I am a philosopher, a mind-controller and awakened. The first two can be proven. The one about being awakened – you would have to talk to people that know me. Maybe you would believe them. But the main issue now is to compare EC-D with SD2.
ec: So much so, that I’m trying to be nicer,…
-M: You are mean, because you are a dodge-monkey.
ec:…fearing you may just be in some sort of mental situation. This kind of thing happens and I would not
want to be any burden on that… Are you…?
-M: I am very nice because I follow the rules, and I bear the burden of proliferating the truth.
M: You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is not how to serve humanity.
ec: I’m interested in the people I encounter. Sometimes some are agreeable, modest, rational…
-M: Are you interested in the truth?
your lack of consistency…
-M: Where?
ec: * defending against the 50%+1 tyranny of the majority yet democracy is only valid when encompassing at least 50% of the population
-M: Did I say otherwise? I did say that voting inputs should be allowed for 50%+1 of the population in order to be called democracy.
ec: * top rank directors represent up to 100% of the population, yet we all know that a referendum can also reach up to 100% “yes”
-M: So? In that situation the directors and the population would probably be in agreement.
ec: * philosopher kings are the only ones able to talk with authority
-M: I did show how you were taking an authoritative position against
authority.
An issue you have since DODGED.
ec: * one can not talk against authority without authority
-M: I hope you aren’t equivocating here. This sentence can be correct.
ec: * you want direct participation yet advocate top rank directors who have the last say in everything
M: Yes, and this participation would be rewarded with rank.
Your EC-D would be very similar, and could achieve dictatorial results
top delagates could easily delegate their votes to the top statecraft
experts, who could delegate to their favorite leader.
By contrast, SD2 beaks up power into managable (recommended) 20% units.
ec: * if A is at the origin of B, then we should only discuss A
irrespective of B, yet you admit that we can also discuss B
-M: ‘only discuss A irrespective of B’ – I never said that.
ec: * you fear the common people yet base your political system on them (why not use IQ tests instead for example? or success through accumulation of money? or force of conviction through years serving in the army? …etc.)
-M: Asking people for general affective data and allowing for vote accumulation is the least arbitrary way to rank people. Your EC-D does this too.
ec: * not contradicting one self means one is not a lemming, what if a “lemming” does not have opinions?
-M: No, someone is a lemming if they contradict themselves about fundamental issues. If they have no opinions, they probably are a lemming also since they don’t have opinions that could be used to guide society correctly.
ec: * you prove your own use of a word through the fact that you use that word in that manner…
-M: No, I use only the current standing definitions.
ec: * the only thing of importance are representatives, not issues, yet we are debating on issues here, not representatives
-M: We are being representitives of our opinions. And many DD-lemmings here want to represent opinions against representation.
and your repetitive use of derogatory words…
-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
ec: Again again again, funny how you can make an ass out of yourself. Where is your whip to shape me up? Ok, I’m calling on your bluff. Who are you??? Any online CV? Any online presence besides here?
-M: The difference is, your other mind-controllers aren’t identifying
themselves as such.
My methods are superior.
..(like lemming or dodge monkey).
-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I am trying to proliferate.
ec: Derogatory terms, lack of respect.
-M: No, its respectful because its the truth.
ec: Plus boasting about your knowledge of “truth” that you dutifully “proliferate”.
-M: Is your statement the truth that you are trying to proliferate?
ec: Are you the messiah? An apostle?
-M: No, just someone who is whupping your dodge-monkey-ass for your own good.
I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only one who should change.
ec: I’m trying to be nice. I don’t know you, but wondering…
-M: If you are trying to be nice, start by stop breaking rules.
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,usually a PM. And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for eachissue? Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is anunavoidable job.)
ec: Tell me what duties require a top administrator… Right now I don’t see
any of them that can not be managed by an employee, but I could be wrong.
-M: The top employee is the top administrator.
I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name.
ec: Delegates can be considered as some sort of representative, yes.
-M: OK, then lets not BS around. What EC-D calls delegates, SD2 calls
representitives.
Your reps are ranked for specific issues, with the option to be ranked
for general issues.
My reps are ranked for general issues, with the option to be ranked for
specific issues.
M: And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
ec: P2P servers? Do I need to go through the term to explain it to you?
-M: Computers can’t give signing authority for executive orders. People are needed for operations in meat-space.
* change delegate* directly voteSame with all other issues.
-M: SD2 has these options. But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs.I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe byaccumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board ofdirectors.
ec: Ad hoc, what a great word!!! It makes all the difference with your ranked directors who decide on all issues.
-M: DOINK! Strawman. Statecraft experts would be expected not to
micromanage.
They would lose rank if they tried.
ec: In my mind, the most important matters will rise in the public consciousness, and will become referendum involving most of the
population. All other issues rely on delegates, who alleviate that burden. Ad hoc yes :)
-M: SD2 has ad hoc options too. The point I was trying to make is that a statecraft community would form under EC-D, ant the top ranked would be similar to SD2 directors.
Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:* opacity* manipulation* corruption* …Vigilance is key.
-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of the accumulative voting.
ec: Ranked hierarchies? Where do you see that?
-M: Some people would accumulate more votes than others. People would notice this.
ec: This is not EC-D, but proxy delegates, or liquid democracy, or just DD with the possibility of transitive delegations on each issue.
-M: There is optional DD, but in practice it would be hardcore-RD. Imagine people voting on structural issues, such as how a constitution would define the relations between the executive, legislative and judiciary.
Votes would get delegated to others. The five with the most acculated
votes would get attention.
I don’t see them as being much different than SD2 directors, and if one
recieved more than 20% of the accumulated votes, they would have more
power than an SD2-director.
M:There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be a powerful anti-corruption mechanism.
ec: Elites can’t be corrupted???
-M: We have elites regardless, so the only issue is anti-corruption mechanisms, which both EC-D and SD2 have.
SD2’s anti-corruption mechanism is the focusing of accountability on
only five people,
and have having them replacable at the drop of a hat.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer