[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100

[…] > >> >-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?

>mG:[…] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence > since we are discussing equal righted humans…

-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.
SD2-S is democratic-republicanism.

>mG:…with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. > Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.

> >>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.

>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 TOP organization or country government. > This debate is not leading to anywhere.

-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is SD2-S, which has specialists for every issue,
so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.

> >-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.)

>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.

-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.
Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.

>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.

-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,
and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.
So this is a point against you, and not me.

>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for > DD. Just BS theory frankly.

-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.

> >>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: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN > CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE. > >mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples > homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.
This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.

> >-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.

>mG: -It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. > Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed > and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.

-M: I envision SD2-S to be TOP complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.

> >>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently. > > >-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant > examples?

-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.
This is a result of lemmingism.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

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

Magnus — 2006-12-05 23:42:08+0100

>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

-OK, looks fine to me.

>> >-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?

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be anonymous.
And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

>>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.

-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 TOP organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.

>>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

>-M: WTF for?

-For the same reasons as above.

>-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.)

-Ben was wrong and he knew it. 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.
By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD.
Just BS theory frankly.

>>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: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes.
Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

>-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.

-It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7.
Concentate on solving that instead.

>>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-02 00:31:44+0100

> >-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the > active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in > favor of the issue. In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

>mG: -Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning > and how are they set?

-M: Have you seen my input field? —————————————————————————————————————--

Read more… / Lire plus…

Name ___________________________]

Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]

Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]

Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]

Decision threshold ⁶⁰%… (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)

…of a required ²⁰%5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)5, default 20%+5) —————————————————————————

-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

> >>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it. > > >-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was > implimented. As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

> >>mG: ~~Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > > possible, quite a big difference.. > > >-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?

> >-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. > Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -

>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.

>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

-M: WTF for?

> >OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

>mG: -Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence > for it or remain silent.

-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.)

> >-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. > This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

>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: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

>mG:…so you are coming with more BS.

-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.

>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

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

Magnus — 2006-11-28 10:39:33+0100

>-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

-Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning and how are they set?
If not, how can the people reactr before a corrupt leader decides soemthing together with his group thinking partners in the top?

>>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

>-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-True, but any idea we discuss will in reality be implemeted in a country by the AD-strategy -to be adapted inside a party which get elected into a parliament.
Any other strategies I see fruitless since the established power structures never will let any revolutionary different democary systems in by free will.
On the oher hand, all decisions taken inside a new party can be fair, just and according to TOP.
And this is what is to be discussed, not the rest of the world. A parallell: If a good system finally would make it and take over a whole contry one could always argue the the UN is still ruled bu other power structures etc etc, but this is not an argument for not using a better system in a specific contry, city or party.

>>mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > possible, quite a big difference..

>-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(

-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: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of

society -

-But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best handled by broad participation and decisions taken by all.

>OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

-Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence for it or remain silent.

>-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

-The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history so you are coming with more BS. Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-27 22:43:25+0100

> > >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > > the issue goes into deliberation. > >mG: What do you mean?

> >-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at > 40%, meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, > even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. > It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

>mG: -I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at > 40%? In a specific issue?

-M: Yes for both.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more > direct votes in the issue or what? Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote?

-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in favor of the issue.
In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

>mG: What is deliberation in SD2?

-M: With SD2, this would occur if there was a split vote among directors.
With SD2-S, this occurs when specialist threshold is met, but popular threshold isn’t.

> >>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy? > > >-M: There are still top administrators, > and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was implimented.
As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

> >-M: ALL systems have power concentration, > so you aren’t making a comparison. > What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

>mG: -Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > possible, quite a big difference..

-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-(

>mG: The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt > politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in > society from the base.

-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -
OR ELSE.
By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

> >>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > > evolve to any significant levels. > > >-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, > and they also can still be duped as usual.

>mG: -This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did > I win this? Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.

-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

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

Magnus — 2006-11-27 13:08:15+0100

> > >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > the issue goes into deliberation. >mG: What do you mean?

>-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

-I don’t understand still, people vote to have the delib threshold at 40%? In a specific issue?
Will this mean that the issue is not decided until there is 40% or more direct votes in the issue or what?
Or that reps having 40% of the voters support have to vote? What is deliberation in SD2?

Read more… / Lire plus…

>>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?

>-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

-Show me one in AD and will comment on it.

>-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

-Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as possible, quite a big difference..
The hot seat is only valuable if you want to hang some corrupt politician, more like a prison instead of solving the problems in society from the base.

>>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > evolve to any significant levels.

>-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.

-This was about corruption, not Lemmings. Can you respond to it or did I win this?
Show me one example where a people is corrupt and not their leaders.

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 00:54:12+0100

> >-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ > meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed, > the issue goes into deliberation.

>mG: What do you mean?

-M: For example people may vote to have the deliberation threshold at 40%,
meaning that a popular vote of >40% is needed for an issue to pass, even if the specialist vote was beyond the needed supermajority. It would be deliberated until the needed popular threshold was met.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? > DD has a power hierarchy just like RD, > meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption. > SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, > and have them compete for senority.

>mG: How has DD a power hiearchy?

-M: There are still top administrators, and many would probably have ‘bully pulpit’ power.

>mG: How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? > The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD > since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few.

-M: ALL systems have power concentration, so you aren’t making a comparison.
What SD2-S does is place those few on the hot seat.

>mG: With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could > evolve to any significant levels.

-M: The lemmings are still lemmings, and they also can still be duped as usual.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

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

Magnus — 2006-11-24 15:53:04+0100

>-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.

-What do you mean?

>-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-How has DD a power hiearchy? How can there be corruption in a truly DD system with TOP in place? The SD2 solution is better than todays crap, but not as good as DD since you still have dangerous amount of power concentrated to a few. With TOP applied for DD I have difficulties to see how corruption could evolve to any significant levels.

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-10 22:29:28+0100

> >M: DD controls the deliberation and thresholds, > and RD controls the decisions. > Why do otherwise?

>mG: -Just becuse there might be some decisions that can be against the will > of the people or it’s rights.

-M: As I said ‘DD controls the deliberation…’ meaning that if popular thresholds aren’t passed,
the issue goes into deliberation.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>mG: In those cases the only guarantee for no misuse from any rep. is to > allow DD, at least on these important issues.

-M: ‘misuse’ – wtf is this? DD has a power hierarchy just like RD,
meaning that both are vulnerable to corruption.
SD2-S’s solution is to put the most trustworthy at the top, and have them compete for senority.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

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

Magnus — 2006-11-10 10:14:10+0100

>DD controls the deliberation and thresholds, and RD controls the decisions.
Why do otherwise?

-Just becuse there might be some decisions that can be against the will of the people or it’s rights.
In those cases the only guarantee for no misuse from any rep. is to allow DD, at least on these important issues.