[MG] RG

max stalnaker max.stalnaker at gmail.com
Sat Nov 19 23:52:31 EST 2016


I am inclined to assume the necessary existence of an elite.  I also think
that determining the goodness of a decision is technically easy post-hoc.
Appropriateness is more difficult.  The combination of the above is
intractable.

On Nov 19, 2016 11:49 AM, "Michal Štěpánek" <agora.ekklesia at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wrote some document to give you some insight into the methodology
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjQ46EYr9bWSF30RAaEn0p_
> lvyLGxyAXigTZrWKxQa8/edit?usp=sharing
>
> cheers
> m.
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 20:27:08 +0100*Scott Raney <metamerman at gmail.com
> <metamerman at gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Patrick 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.
>
> I dispute that, unless the "minority" you're referring to are the very
> elites who have taken control of our misrepresentative democracies.
> Sure, some people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's racial
> and religious minorities our misrepresentative democracies are
> protecting, but frankly I have to conclude that those people aren't
> even paying attention. Once they start to gain power and learn how to
> wield it this misplaced fear of DD will simply evaporate, at least for
> most of us...
>
> > 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.
>
> It kind of glosses over the issue of pre-existing conditions. For
> example, Boulder's new soda tax, passed by referendum (i.e., DD) has
> been called "racist" because it supposedly discriminates against the
> poor, who even here in lily-white Boulder are primarily non-white.
> Unless you somehow arrange to have more-or-less equal starting
> positions (something my matchism proposal attempts, but which is not a
> characteristic of any other proposal outside of science fiction), it's
> impossible to equalize the effects of the discrimination.
>
> But IMHO you're barking up the wrong tree: It's *exactly* the rich and
> powerful "minority" that The People will start to discriminate against
> when given the ability. Look to the various communist revolutions as
> examples. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but
> safeguards (especially information dissemination about when to stop
> "equalizing") need to be put into place to prevent a repeat of the
> communist fiascos...
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/be96f25a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Start mailing list