Dealing now only with the areas we disagree on... -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ 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: Sun 2003-08-31 04:14:21
Author: Redeye
Subject: Dealing now only with the areas we disagree on...
In reply to: arendt 's message, "More responses (REPOSTED - it vanished)" on Sat 2003-08-30 06:37:00

A. We're going to use the model for exactly one type of application - a government based on the NK model. Therefore, we won't need to construct the algorithm in a way that should work in other application. Furthermore, I might've implied that there shouldn't be a coherent algorithm for several programs, but what I meant is very different from that - basically, I meant that if there needs to be an all-encompassing algorithm, it should be based on combining analogies to reflect human society rather than assume that what's true for metaphysics, cognitive science, and computers is also true for society and politics.

B. Actually, my feelings about Darwin have nothing to do with have and hate and everything to do with truth and falsety. Evidence overwhelmingly supports Darwinian principles in biology with a few tweaks (genotypes, microevolution, etc.).

C. My point about ant colonies is that the concern in such systems is the colony as a whole - recall Hofstadter's anteater again. Moreover, the fact that worker ants have the same DNA (something I think is wrong but I'm not sure, anyway) is relevant to the discussion only if you define the self in biological, DNA, high-level terms. If you define the self in physical, spatial, low-level terms, then clones are different because they occupy different points in space in different points in time; and if you define the self in cognitive terms, then clones are different because each has a separate brain.

D. The equation I use between communism and organicism is the following:
- Suppose the state is an organic whole
- In organic wholes, the whole is more important than its replaceable parts (irreplaceable parts are things like heart valves)
- In a large state, in which many people can fulfill the same task (in small communities there is often only one or two car mechanics, one lumberjack, etc.), every person is replaceable
- Therefore, in a large organic state, the state is more important than most or all individuals, and even the exceptions are defined according to utility to the state
- Therefore, individuals are subordinate to the state
- Therefore, the system we get is communistic (it can't be fascistic because we assume that some form of humanism is correct)
- Therefore, the system is the human equivalent to an ant colony, in which the whole is more important than the one and which has broadly communistic characteristics

Basically, I define a good structure mostly according to the first part of the Liberal Manifesto (up to and including Social Change) - in a nutshell, a system that does what's in everyone's best interests while promoting knowledge as an end in itself, the abandonment of bad traditions, negative liberties, subordinating the whole to the individual(s), and tweaking the system so that what's in everyone's interest is also in the interest of conscious sets of people (including, for example, women or blacks, but not people born north of 39� 45' or people born between 12:00 pm and 3:45 pm local).

E. First, I'd rather not base political decisions on analogies to theories in biology that are still controversial or non-mainstream. Until I see more of the "group" that believes that protomes are responsible to mutations, I'll have to shelve the theory.

Second, politics already has a mechanism that suggests mutations - lobbies, bills, and other ways to introduce legislation. Rather, what we need is a semi-Darwinian mechanism that will on the one hand vet such mutations and on the other hand do it in reasonable time and under individualistic constraints. Protomes don't do even the former; natural selection does.

Third, the protome requests the genome to produce more proteins (supposedly) in response to a specific crisis and in the interest of the body, rather than in some selfish interest. The protome is neither viral nor cancerous.

F. I agree that the president has too much power, actually. However, even as a homonculus he serves the important functions of simplifying government and its image, being the personification of the state (patriotism, should I remind you, is naturally authoritarian and revolving around a cult of personality). That he is given too much attention is IMO not the fault of the system but of the media and the people's ignorance and simple-mindedness.

"Small-minded people think in terms of people. Average-minded people think in terms of things. Great-minded people think in terms of concepts."

G. I guess I agree about the legislature vetoing impulsive, emotional ideas" and about the executive acting in times of emergency. However, I'm not sure that this theoretical virtue is practical; if the legislature is too strong, it will resist the president's emergency measures, whereas if the president is too strong, he'll be able to do things in ordinary times that the legislature would veto if it had the time or ability to do so.

H. I'll repost the debate on voting age on DU, mainly because this issues involves far more than designing a new form of government (and also because I can get the whole 18-30 group there on my side...).

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

Replies:

Trying to deal with "organicism" -- arendt, Sun 2003-08-31 19:57:03
- The Liberal Manifesto -- Redeye, Mon 2003-09-01 03:08:33
- Re: Trying to deal with "organicism" -- Redeye, Mon 2003-09-01 10:56:46
  - I agree with you - I need a break from all this debating -- arendt, Tue 2003-09-02 14:18:33
    - Right... -- Redeye, Wed 2003-09-03 23:20:44