McCain's VP Pick

Oh, and another interesting idea...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

I don't see acts as a moral system like above, but two-level utilitarianism is close. I uphold ethics for structural integrity, but essentially reject morals - as I see it as a consequence of blind faith/religion, and rather prefer the idea of personal integrity. I mentioned the necessity of hypocrisy to existence earlier in a thread, and it's a central (and in my view, correct) implication of two-level utilitarianism.

These topics are pretty interesting as the philosophical foundation for social conservatives, pro-life - or liberal - anyone's ideas. I know it's probably going too deep into matters for most and some prefer the simpler "word of their minister" or similar, but it is essentially a central aspect to what is being discussed here - and the resulting different values. More people should be interested in the philosophical implications of their ideas, beliefs, values - even if their are religious fundamentalists. It greatly reduces the distance between word and action - improves rationality and reduces hypocritical errors.

And for "direct democracy" the following is an interesting problem, central to voting systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

The theorem further emphasizes that one can not exclude opinions from voting debates, like I mentioned earlier for a balanced, fair information access and as basis for electronic voting. But with technology we can get very close to perfection, by moving the trust-model over to a technological platform.

Say "yes" to education!
:)
 
Just as a comment on the "impossible fairness" of voting systems...

The flaw with the theorem is that it sets all choices as static choices, not to be undone... That is not how the universe and reality behaves, and that is not how a decision is made. Every reasonable and stable/healthy environment includes the possibility to change and adapt, even acceptance that one can be wrong - and so must a voting system provide this feature. Therefore, a voting process is dynamic - but for pragmatic and economic/resource considerations there needs to be a balance between how a vote can be changed, or indeed deemed necessary, if there is not "sufficient information", if not "perfect information" is, available at the time of voting.

A modern technological platform makes voting systems as continuous interactive processes possible - not just based on primetime information culminating into an election, but information gained any time and votes adjustable as better/more information is gained.
:)
 
Quote from Gringinho:

Just as a comment on the "impossible fairness" of voting systems...

The flaw with the theorem is that it sets all choices as static choices, not to be undone... That is not how the universe and reality behaves, and that is not how a decision is made. Every reasonable and stable/healthy environment includes the possibility to change and adapt, even acceptance that one can be wrong - and so must a voting system provide this feature. Therefore, a voting process is dynamic - but for pragmatic and economic/resource considerations there needs to be a balance between how a vote can be changed, or indeed deemed necessary, if there is not "sufficient information", if not "perfect information" is, available at the time of voting.

A modern technological platform makes voting systems as continuous interactive processes possible - not just based on primetime information culminating into an election, but information gained any time and votes adjustable as better/more information is gained.
:)
More...

So with this you say, ok, all votes are in and someone wins. Then time goes by and people gain more information about the person they voted for who won . And this new information about who they voted for tells them maybe they made a mistake. But that person they voted for is in office already.
So you say we should make a system to revote after time to account for any new information that might change our minds?
And even if a person is elected for a term, they are subject to evaluation of new information. And if new information brings a different view of the winner, then they can be removed by the vote of the people?
 
trendlover,

in a direct democracy like e-democracy or the transitional form of representative direct democracy - there are no bureaucrat politicians elected into "office".
:)

For decisions on voting matters, there need to be protective systems so that e.g costly projects are not constantly scrapped - i.e that there is some form of commitment, but variable and depending on the nature of the project. These commitments can be seen as rules, which can be revised when deemed necessary.

It is a recursive nature of a dynamic system, where one could want to change several components to ultimately create another change as a consequence, but in a direct democracy - it's not a useful strategy for special interests - as they will need everyone to participate. Also see "incrementalism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_Modelling


A good technological platform that caters for the underlying trust-models also removes some of the aspects for special interest influence on execution of policies in a bureaucracy - like deceit, corruption. That is also the case for politics/governance - with a e-democracy - and the possibility for corruption removed. Organized strategies can also better be resisted by using systems like range voting or similar.

The idea of a trust-model moved to a technological platform is just like when a pizzeria owner moves all orders onto a computerized system and detaches the payment/order unit from the delivery/production unit to avoid the possibility of stealing/embezzlement.
 
Quote from Gringinho:

trendlover,

in a direct democracy like e-democracy or the transitional form of representative direct democracy - there are no bureaucrat politicians elected into "office".
:)

For decisions on voting matters, there need to be protective systems so that e.g costly projects are not constantly scrapped - i.e that there is some form of commitment, but variable and depending on the nature of the project. These commitments can be seen as rules, which can be revised when deemed necessary.

It is a recursive nature of a dynamic system, where one could want to change several components to ultimately create another change as a consequence, but in a direct democracy - it's not a useful strategy for special interests - as they will need everyone to participate. Also see "incrementalism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_Modelling
More...

I will have to have more time to look at what you wrote. This is hard to interpret for me. My dictionary will help:) But thank you for your reply.
 
IMAO: Why I Love the Sarah Palin Choice

Because (from a recent MorOn.Org email) it makes Democrats say things like this:

"I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK"

Let's do some subtle re-writing so that you can see why this makes me giggle so:

"I think he's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for an African-American in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other African-Americans who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on the Democratic Party's part - and insulting to African-Americans everywhere that they would assume they'll get our vote by putting "An African-American" in that position."

--> Look for Jennifer's PKB (pot - kettle - black) argument in various forms everywhere.

:) :) :)
 
Quote from lilduckling:

wow..... this thread sure turned boring very quickly
More...
It's not the thread, it's us... on Labor Day weekend, what do you expect? :)
 
When asked about executive experience Obama said his campaign has a bigger budget than Alaska's budget. That might bite him. There are no competing interests in a campaign for everybody drinks the same coolAid. Try running a town where even stupid decisions such as what amenities to put in a town park, where to put the stop signs,etc are disputed.
 
Quote from MushinSeeker:

Try running a town where even stupid decisions such as what amenities to put in a town park, where to put the stop signs,etc are disputed.
More...
So firing all the experienced town staffers who didn't support her election bid and filling those jobs with inexperienced cronies is how to get that done? We've all seen how well that "works" on a national level with Bush cronyism, and Palin has blazed the same trail in Alaska.

I guess you want a continuation of that across the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top