VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu 2003-08-28 21:27:49
Author: Redeye
Subject: Re: Responses to your points
In reply to: arendt 's message, "Responses to your points" on Wed 2003-08-27 16:44:35

I don't think we should break down our points, at least for now. They still relate to one another too much, and the posts are only beginning to grow beyond our control for the time being.

BTW, formats here work in pure HTML, except that multiple spaces, enters, etc. show even without the &nbsp and <br> tags. The [quote]/[/quote] function you have in vB and UBB is a nightmare and consists of the following code:
<blockquote><font size="2"><hr>text goes here</font></blockquote>

1. I try to construct models according to what works best, not according to particular models. I'm trying to avoid in this case both the mechanistic model that's outdated and the organic model that's communistic. I'm using a combination of both as well as a networking system and a university course choice system (you must do 10 general studies courses, 15 courses in your major, and so on...).

My problem with ant colonies should be straightforward. Much of the basis of ethics talks about human beings as rational beings, which are what ethical/political systems should advance. Ant colonies do not work in an individualistic way but in a communistic one, which is an anathema to the whole liberal idea of people rather than structures mattering. In this respect the machine analogy is better than the organic one, although the machine analogy does fail to account for replacement of parts (i.e. birth and death) and for whatever sets the government in motion.

2. I'm not so sure that the HR will only enact abstract policy. I guess it depends on how you define the term; if you define it as debating normative or political theory issues, then it's hard to do that in a 400-member body, but then again, most normative debates are in the Judiciary except when a constitutional amendment is on the agenda, and I've yet to see a single political theory debate in any legislature. Politicians are apparently either not interested in theory or are too incompetent to discuss it.

Rather, what I think will happen is that the HR will discuss macro, long-term, or just highly important policy issues. It will discuss high-level concrete issues such as foreign policy guidelines (which countries to trade with, how often to use force, which allies to concentrate on, etc.), the small government/big government debate, and so on.

And as for computers doing the stuff, I'm saying that I treat people as organisms, as rational beings, but that the rote, mechanic stuff is sometimes replaceable, emphassi on sometimes.

3. The ministers will only have to ask for permission in case of an emergency, methinks... but yeah, you raise a valid point. What's the point of having Courts of Appeals if they have to ask the Supreme Court what to do every time?

4. Yes, we do agree. My question is, what is the equivalent of this half-second wait in politics?

5. I guess we'll need goobergunch to comment here. Anyway, just FYI, the purpose of that provision is to prevent laws from being passed without debate; I use the Patriot Act as the main example because Congress should debate or should have debated the idea of sacrificing freedoms for protection, and moreover because it passed partly because many Congressmen didn't read it but just looked at the title and said "yeah, that'll both strengthen America and make me look patriotic."

7. Needless to say... states don't need SLs and DLs, btw, do they?

8. I understand your fear. The power of money is a valid concern, but then again you need to consider the fact that Ahnold et al might also get elected first to legislative offices (especially with proportional representation, which'll practically guarantee them a seat) and only then to gubernatorial or presidential offices. If the people care about someone's career in lower-level legislatures, they'll also care about his non-career if he runs immediately for a higher-level office.

On another note, I said I used the university system as part of the analogy for government. Now, you don't want to know how hard it was to defeat the bureaucracy of my damn college; I only knew which courses I could take at the end of the second week of lectures, and at several points I was about to give up and drop out. Requirements such as time in lower-level offices, age, and so on are the equivalents of the bureaucratic quirks in the university system that prevent people from fully exercising their creativity and intellect until they get a Ph.D, and even then not always.

9. 21-year-olds don't become generals because of qualifications and the long time it takes to vet officers and generals, not because they're 21. In politics the vetting process is quicker. And even so, once in a while you see figures whose positions is much higher than the average for their age; for examples, Jean d'Arc (general at 20), Adam Smith (graduated from the University of Bristol at 17), and William Pitt the Elder (became prime minister at 24).

Furthermore, letting 16-year-olds vote for everything is not like making them generals; letting them be elected for every office is. I still support some age qualifications, albeit lenient ones (e.g. you need to be 25 to be president or minister, 21 to be legislator of any level or governor, and 18 to be anything else) - I know Britain has something similar to what I said, and I don't see it being flooded with inexperienced punks. The leniency changes the tone of qualifications from age to merit.

11. That will have to be clearly established, I agree. But I still don't see how my point begged any question. Basically, my idea, which you can see in the freedom of information provision (article 16 in my latest proposal), is that the executive must report everything to the legislature and to the public. Sometimes details will have to be omitted (e.g. names of spies), but even so the basic idea that the president must say at least something like "the United States is receiving constant reports from inside Al-Qaida" still holds.

13. Are you sure it's darkness? While I agree in principle, I don't see how a legislatrue dealing with 5 sub-issues can be subject to that kind of deals.

14. What are those kinds of fine-tuned control? Also, the proteome AFAIK naturally does what's it's programmed for instead of tries to expand and expand. Remember: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.