I see this as involving two fundamental issues: governing a commons and group effectiveness.
- There is a lot of current work on governing a commons. The best known name is Elinor Ostrom<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cogs.indiana.edu%2Fpeople%2Fhomepages%2Fostrom.html&ei=kl7qSKfcIYKmsAOkmoWTCg&usg=AFQjCNEEFEFbt30d32Ibv1TgyvczfMdnlQ&sig2=8fhZnTEsFKK8xjiMcA-32Q>. - The issue of groups, their effectiveness, how evolution selects on groups as well as on individuals has been studied (and publicized) most recently by David Sloan Wilson<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevolution.binghamton.edu%2Fdswilson%2F&ei=3V7qSKWKM4KMsAPe87SZCg&usg=AFQjCNEh5yajO931TbTPBmgv0J8AtID1ig&sig2=5tuzmrB21Zn2jzOw4BBoNw> . Both of these issues are extraordinarily important. They are both relevant to effective government. But they don't offer simple one-line solutions. -- Russ On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Thus spake Steve Smith circa 10/06/2008 10:46 AM: > > That said, I'm not offering a better plan, though I agree that big > campaign > > contributions are a problem in almost every case. > > But big campaigns (and big campaign contributions) are just a symptom of > non-local (big) government. As long as we have a single government that > governs 3.5 million square miles, we will have complex laws with lots of > loopholes and aggressive special interests who drive campaigns (with > money). > > The problem, in my view, lies with the way government accumulates upward > to a peak. Granted, we have a decent system so that government > accumulates upward to 3 (or 4, if you include the free press) peaks. > But, it's still going from 300 million humans and 3.5 million mi^2 up to > 3 peaks and 68 mi^2. > > I would suggest that the myriad problems with our government don't lie > in any one identifiable cause, but are instead peppered throughout the > accumulation... the way household government accumulates to neighborhood > associations, villages, cities, counties, states, feds, etc. > > I'm totally ignorant of political science; but I wonder how much > coherent work is out there on various objective-satisficing methods for > accumulating government? I'm not talking about silo'ed research like > "methods of state government" or "methods of county government", but > methods for accumulating all the way up from (psychological) > self-government of the individual to President, Congress, and the > courts. Surely there exists some (by now, half-insane) systems theory > people out there who've been ranting about this sort of accumulation, eh? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
