Russ, There may not be simple one-line solutions, but there are simple one-line necessities, that any solution needs to include.
One is to counteract the problem that investing in the use of a commons to multiply your returns from it will invariably cause it to collapse unless you switch your returns to divestment before that occurs. The obligation to self-limit the compound amplification of resource exploitations is missing from all the widely discussed management proposals I know of. Phil From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 2:56 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Effective government; was: Willful Ignorance 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 <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=kl7qSKfcIYKmsAOkmoWTC g&usg=AFQjCNEEFEFbt30d32Ibv1TgyvczfMdnlQ&sig2=8fhZnTEsFKK8xjiMcA-32Q> Ostrom. * 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 <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevol ution.binghamton.edu%2Fdswilson%2F&ei=3V7qSKWKM4KMsAPe87SZCg&usg=AFQjCNEh5ya jO931TbTPBmgv0J8AtID1ig&sig2=5tuzmrB21Zn2jzOw4BBoNw> Sloan Wilson. 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
