Greetings Economists,
On Jul 29, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
The bullet you really have to bite in a social dem
or I suspect any democratic context is that a lot of
what the public wants or can be convinced to support
is crap. Crap is the price you pay for the important
stuff.
Doyle;
That's a not very systemic view of crap. As rules of thumb perhaps
the concept might keep one at ease when one doesn't have anything in
mind to apply, but an intellectuals role ought to have systemic
principles that address this sense of error in an existing system.
Let's just expand the term democratic - in the sense of computerized
communications. Is the process of voting over content or elected
persons not subject to communications improvements in a systemic way?
Said another way, all a democratic project is about is collaboration
over writing rules for a system. The collaboration is limited by the
ability of the media at hand to communicate what needs to be done.
Specifically decisions are in general made by small groups of people
while automation of data process implies enlarging the small group
process beyond the limits of typical humans means of face to face
communications.
While a harmless comment on a rule of thumb, it seems to me difficult
to swallow in the sense of economic parables.
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
