[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization http://echarp.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_96/vote.rss [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 1 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100 http://echarp.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/vote.rss http://echarp.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_97/vote.rss Mark Rosst <p><p>[…] > >> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-( > >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > > wouldn’t agree with you. > > >-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves > are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? > Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?</p> <p>>mG:[…] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence > since we are discussing equal righted humans…</p> <p>-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.<br/> SD2-S is <strong>democratic</strong>-republicanism.</p> <p>>mG:…with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. > Neither are there laws, <span class="caps">TOP</span> or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.</p> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more… / Lire plus…</a> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.</p> <p>> >>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best > >> handled by broad participation… > > >-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and > even encouraged by SD2-S.</p> <p>>mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. > AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a > delegate. But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be > options in a future <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization or country government. > This debate is not leading to anywhere.</p> <p>-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is <strong>SD2-S</strong>, which has specialists for every issue,<br/> so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.</p> <p>> >-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and > non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)</p> <p>>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.</p> <p>-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.<br/> Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.</p> <p>>mG: He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power. > There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither > accountable to each other. So they can go and elect Hitler.</p> <p>-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,<br/> and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.<br/> So this is a point against you, and not me.</p> <p>>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for > DD. Just BS theory frankly.</p> <p>-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.</p> <p>> >>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history… > > >-M: <span class="caps">EVERY</span> <span class="caps">SINGLE</span> <span class="caps">FORM</span> OF <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span>, <span class="caps">WITHOUT</span> <span class="caps">EXCEPTION</span>, <span class="caps">HAS</span> <span class="caps">BEEN</span> > <span class="caps">CORRUPTION</span> <span class="caps">ALLOWED</span> BY <span class="caps">THE</span> <span class="caps">PEOPLE</span>. > >mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples > homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?</p> <p>-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.<br/> This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.</p> <p>> >-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are > counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.</p> <p>>mG: -It will be impossible within a true <span class="caps">TOP</span> organization to steal. > Your problem is how a rep can be fully <span class="caps">TOP</span> since he can’t be followed > and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.</p> <p>-M: I envision SD2-S to be <span class="caps">TOP</span> complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.</p> <p>> >>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently. > > >-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.</p> <p>>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant > examples?</p> <p>-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.<br/> This is a result of lemmingism.</p> <p>shanti<br/> Mark, Seattle WA <span class="caps">USA</span></p> <p>—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics@googlegroups.com">top-politics@googlegroups.com</a> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href="mailto:top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a> For more options, visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en">http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en</a> -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-</p> </div></p>