Re: FW - Debating goverance
Thanks, Thomas, for a well considered response. I don't think our differences of opinion on this matter can ever be resolved by reason, they can only be tempered by experience. My opinion is that debating governance remains just that -- debating. I would recommend that you get ahold of a 1977 book titled _Sabotage_ by Geoff Brown for one account of the vagaries of micro-governance and counter-strategy. My own views on the potential for change at the top are very much influenced by Charles Lindblom's discussion of policy incrementalism and the science of "muddling through". And I might add that Lindblom's influence on my thinking has itself been incremental. >Subject: Re: FW - Debating goverance > > >>Thomas Lunde wrote, >> >>>Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of >>>Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical >>>changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that >>>it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine >>>what the future of work will be. >> > >Tom Walker said: > >>I agree with Thomas' observation that this is what happens. But I disagree >>with his conclusion that the "top of the heap" is the proper starting place >>for the debate. What Thomas casually refers to as "technical changes" are >>the substantive conditions under which different structures of governance >>might be possible. In our society, paid work is the microstructure of >>governance. Perhaps people find top of the heap questions easier to talk >>about because they are harder to do anything about. > >>Tom Walker > >Thomas: > >Governance is a structure, if I can presume to build a picture in your mind, >in which the apex consititutes a very small number of individuals whose >actions create a framework in which the majority - literally all of us - >play out the drama of our lives. It is like a pyramid. Within the lower >99.999% of the pyramid, we, the majority are constrained, directed and >guided by legalistic forms, much like parking our automobile at a Mall is >controlled by the designers of the mall. One example that comes to mind is >the lineup at the local bank. It used to be a series of linear lines, you >chose which line you thought would get you to the teller quickest. Then it >was changed to one long line in which the first person took the first >available teller. Then if became a line that was controlled by little >chrome posts that had us stand in a snake like lineup which conserved floor >space for the bank. Now, if you walk into a bank, even if there is no one >ahead of you, you are forced by the arrangement of the chrome posts to >follow the snake like path to get to a teller. Whenever I am forced to do >this, I get angry, as I feel I am responsible enough to just walk in a >straight line to the nearest teller. > >The same control has been imposed on us through Voice Mail. You dial up >Bell Telephone and you are forced to wait through a pre-recorded message >that lists your options according to the doors they want you to go through. >Should you have a request that can only be answered by a human, you finally >learn you can select that option which throws you into a waiting pattern and >forces you to listen to their advertising while waiting for the operator. >The operator then comes on and starts interrogating you, your name, your >phone number, your address, finally after 5 to 7 minutes of wasting your >time, you are finally allowed by the structure to ask the question you >originally wanted to ask. > >Slowly but surely, we are being strangled in our choices as they impose >their options on us, not for our convience or needs but for their convience >or needs. This is governance in operation. Now, I can spend a year of my >life arguing with Bell or the Bank or the designer of a Mall and perhaps I >might get a small change in their procedure - a technical change - or I can >ask that a law be passed by the small number at the apex of the structure >that would outlaw the controlling of consumers by corporate controls. >However, under the current governance, the chances of me, an individual >impacting them to make a change is really remote because they have designed >a governance structure in which the needs of people are not important, >rather the need to retain power through re-election is the primary >consideration. > >Tom Walker wrote: > >Conversely, bottom of >>the heap questions are harder to talk about because they indicate courses >of >>direct action that have personal consequences. It is the "sanctions" >>involved in those personal cons
FW - Debating goverance
Thomas: Good ol FW. It seems that interesting topics often find fertile ground among our various posters. Though I have not had much time to monitor all the viewpoints, I would like to suggest "governance" as a topic in which a polarity of viewpoints is evolving. On the one hand, Jay Hanson is suggesting a governance by scientists and other experts, while I on the other hand am suggesting a governance by non experts. Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine what the future of work will be. And so, I conclude that this is perhaps the proper forum for us to start - at the top of heap - governance, which will determine the economics - which will determine the redistribution of resources - which is currently done through work - specifically, paid work. And of course, the implicit question of FutureWork has always been, what is going to happen to all of us as the nature of work changes due to economic changes which are sanctioned by ideological changes enacted by governance. When we come to the overall concept of governance, we can see the polarities of democracy - ie every citizen having the power through a vote - to totalitarism in which no citizen has the power to affect government. Jay and I have proposed variations on these two polarities. I have suggested replacing the vote with the concept of a lottery, while Jay has proposed the selection of experts in science. In a sense, my option eliminates politics as we know it and now it becomes a matter of those selected by lottery to use their assumed innate abilities to provide for laws and regulations that will benefit all. In a sense, Jay's model also eliminates democracy as those being selected will be chosen through a form of meritocracy. Jay wrote: > The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and > then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to > explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and > hire someone else. As I read this quote, Jay's system appears as a problem solving system by experts who are given a series of specific questions - problems and from them they will propose the steps of solutions which will in effect become the law. It will be a performance driven system and those who fail to perform are terminated and another is put in the hot seat. In this sense of governance, I see that the defined problems drive the rules of governance and people and resources are just units to be manipulated until desired ends are reached and then it is on to the next problem and the next manipulation. In my proposed system, I see a much messier and perhaps more inefficient model of governance. The distinguishing difference is that it is not problem driven but - for lack of a better term - accommodation driven. As those selected by lottery represent all - or most - of the variations of citizens, then I would expect that each selected individual would be looking at problems through the lens of their experience rather than through the discipline of a scientific field in which they have been trained. They will be thinking how each proposed solution will affect people like themselves and with the concept of partisan politics eliminated, I would assume that many of the votes of Parliament would be much different than the votes that are cast by Party members who often have to place the agenda of the Party over their personal experience. Without being an expert of any kind, I see this in the history of the ancient Greeks and the polarity of Sparta and Athens. It is a long debate that has seen many variations. For us, on this List, the question has to be explored within the context of our problems, population, resources, economic systems. It is interesting though, that these two great polarities still exist and no definitive "right" model has emerged. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: FW - Debating goverance
Thomas Lunde wrote, >Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of >Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical >changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that >it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine >what the future of work will be. I agree with Thomas' observation that this is what happens. But I disagree with his conclusion that the "top of the heap" is the proper starting place for the debate. What Thomas casually refers to as "technical changes" are the substantive conditions under which different structures of governance might be possible. In our society, paid work is the microstructure of governance. Perhaps people find top of the heap questions easier to talk about because they are harder to do anything about. Conversely, bottom of the heap questions are harder to talk about because they indicate courses of direct action that have personal consequences. It is the "sanctions" involved in those personal consequences that keep most of us micro-governing ourselves on behalf of the status quo. Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
