[MG] RG

Michal Štěpánek agora.ekklesia at gmail.com
Sat Nov 19 13:21:45 EST 2016


Thank you. Might be.

My approach is more like monitoring it. When you ask about the "good" you will also collect some data about the 

respondendse.g. income class, ethnicity, religion, ...

This way should know what kind of "good" you are about to create. "good" for ...



Cheers

m.




---- On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:47:40 +0100Patrick Millerd <mrpdublin at gmail.com> wrote ----




Been thinking about a quick fix for a metric of goodness on proposals. One of the main fears of DD is that of tyranny of majority, subjugating minority groups/individuals to measures they reject. The way to mitigate this problem is to have a blanket rule that any proposal will have to apply to everyone. Therefore any attempt to marginalise a group would need to marginalise every group, thus making it less likely to pass. A group would be defined as any race, country, religion or company (restrictions incurred would need to apply to the industry as a whole). I assume there must be faults in this type of thinking but as of yet, I can't come up with any good examples. Prove me wrong.    




On 19 November 2016 at 10:56, Scott Raney <metamerman at gmail.com> wrote:







_______________________________________________

Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project 

http://www.metagovernment.org/ 

Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org 

Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org 


On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Michal Štěpánek
 <agora.ekklesia at gmail.com> wrote:
 
 > Sure they are different. Business is mostly Autocracy Ltd. with a direct
 > goal of profit.
 > Government
 > is authoritarian/plutocratic with goals described by Parkinson's laws and
 > may be limited by elections.
 
 I'd clarify that to specify that the executive branch is naturally
 hierarchical and authoritarian, but that's not necessarily true of the

 legislative branch, nor does the latter even need to be plutocratic.

 Always consider the EEA when making statements about the natural state

 of human "government": A million years ago there were no "plutocrats"

 because our social instincts prevented them from arising (indeed

 acquiring too much power was liable to cause your murder). And

 decisions involving the whole band were made collectively, with the

 same people making the decisions being the ones who would have to

 carry them out. Hierarchy did probably sometimes emerge at that point

 (e.g., when making war on the neighboring band, there were undoubtedly

 leaders, although unlike our current concept of them leaders in the

 EEA were out on the front lines too), but if we design our new system

 properly, hierarchy and plutocracy won't have to be part of the

 legislative/decisionmaking process. But we've got to understand and

 account for our natural abilities to ensure that.

 
 > Still
 > they both should be focused on goodness and may be analogical in group
 > decision-making.
 > Anyway
 > I think we do need to reform both, government and business.
 
 Business could certain stand a little "optimization" but I wouldn't
 even consider it to the scale of "reform". Government, on the other

 hand, doesn't need "reform", it needs a complete redesign. So that's

 where IMHO we should concentrate *all* of our effort.

 
 >> 2) Conflicting values makes it impossible to come up with a single
 >> definition of "good". Unlike business, where profitability is a
 >> universal standard.
 >>
 >> Yes, that is the usual approach, but not mine. The adjective is one:
 >> "good",
 >> that is what I like to measure. One man that says "good" about decision1 +
 >> one woman that says "good" about decision1 = two people that say "good"
 >> about decision1
 >
 > Hmm. Sounds challenging. You certainly can't use the normal metrics
 > for measuring something like this because you've also got to develop
 > some sort of massive factor-analysis model to figure what "good" is
 > even measuring before you can even start comparing goodness of fit for
 > decisions...
 >
 > Why?
 
 Say one system results in the passage of a law in Europe or the US
 that puts all immigrants from the middle east or Africa out of work,

 but compensates by ensuring full employment for white people, then

 compare that with a system that passes a law that only slightly

 increases employment rates of all groups. By your metrics the first

 one could be selected as doing more "good" because all you're

 proposing to do is poll the very voters who rendered the decision.

 

 Granted I don't propose to design a system that would naturally make

 one of those laws more likely to be passed than the other, but my

 proposal has two important differences:

 1) I'm not going to be deluding myself or the population into saying

 that we just used a "good" system to pass a "good" law: They're going

 to have to keep their doubts and be prepared to reverse or alter the

 decision at any time.

 2) The design of the system must only ensure that the preferences of

 those immigrants (and indeed every other marginalized group) would

 have at least been considered and counted when making the decision.

 

 That is, I don't plan to make any claims about objective "goodness",

 which would require a very complicated analysis where the impact on

 each individual affected by the decision would have to be assessed and

 aggregated. Being truly representative is sufficient. Only in that

 case can we ensure that the decision "matches" the Will of the People

 and whether you or I, or indeed even the majority of the "voters" as

 they are counted in misrepresentative democracy, would consider that

 decision "good" is irrelevant.

 
 > You know, Scott, there is a lot of ideological work and it is basically
 > incomparable ( based on different worldviews). You are asking us to do this
 > more ideological work, to believe unquestionably in direct democracy (or
 > even in some very special form) and work. Heaven is close.
 
 I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when I
 see someone on this list blindly accept elitism as not only the status

 quo, but indeed a fundamental component of your ideology. Yet I am:

 The idea that some new technology-enhanced oligarchy (which includes

 every system discussed on this list with the possible exception of

 AutoMatch) will be any improvement over our current misrepresentative

 democracies is just delusional IMHO. It's like tweaking the equations

 that predict how the sun goes around the earth, or how may grams of

 phlogiston will be released when a piece of plastic burns. Even if you

 don't end up believing in DD wholeheartedly, not taking the time to

 research and understand the personality types that emerge as rulers in

 oligarchies means your are simply wasting your time working on

 anything that assumes that they'll behave any different than they do

 now.

 
 > On the other hand, we got here a method that may compare worldviews in some
 > sense. Moreover, science seems to be more influential than ideology today.
 
 LOL! You may have missed it, but the US just elected a climate-change
 denier president!

 

  Regards,

 Scott

 

 _______________________________________________

 Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project

 http://www.metagovernment.org/

 Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org

 Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20161119/ef90fb7b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Start mailing list