Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would it have to be restricted to a numerical scale? Couldn't you be polled on a range of issues to determine where the government was succeeding and where it wasn't? Did you read the original post? A decision is made based on aggregate happiness. How do you do it non-numerically? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Not even if they asked and you told them? How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?). And how to know how much of the happiness is due to the government and how much is the result of other causes? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~) Not even if they asked and you told them? How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?). And how to know how much of the happiness is due to the government and how much is the result of other causes? Surely you would be happier in a juristiction with a constitution that forbade government involvement in those activitiess you believe to be much better run by the private sector? Surely if you were aware that you were being poled on your happiness in order to assess whether the existing constitution was to be retained or replaced by one that encouraged wild government spending, you (and all right minded citizens) would score themselves 10 out of 10 for hapiness to avoid the change? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
John Williams How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?). And how to know how much of the happiness is due to the government and how much is the result of other causes? Why would it have to be restricted to a numerical scale? Couldn't you be polled on a range of issues to determine where the government was succeeding and where it wasn't? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
John Williams wrote: 1) Why trust the government with measuring something as abstract as happiness, if it can be measured at all? I don't think I'd trust even my closest friends and family to measure my happiness. Not even if they asked and you told them? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
John Williams wrote: It is obvious that no system is perfect. No matter whether it is a centrally controlled system, or a completely decentralized system, there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. I'd rather have a fault-tolerant system that tends to evolve toward greater efficiency. With central control, the mistakes tend to be coordinated and are capable of destabilizing the entire system. With a diverse, decentralized system, there will be plenty of mistakes, but they will tend to be uncorrelated and while you may see some local failures, most of the system will continue unabated. And as a bonus, the decentralized system is effectively a massively parallel set of experiments that, through trial and error, can result in evolution towards a more efficient system. I've been following this discussion and something about this argument was nagging at me, but I wasn't sure what. Now I think I've figured it out: You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. You argue that diverse decentralized systems work better because mistakes are uncorrelated and failures are localized. In a perfect world, I think you may be correct, but we don't live in a perfect world. Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without regard to long-term consequences. Some social contract is necessary to curb these activities and some level of government regulation can provide that contract. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Williams wrote: there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. By no means is everyone a rational actor. People make mistakes, act emotionally instead of rationally, and generally tend to screw things up. Politicians especially. You argue that diverse decentralized systems work better because mistakes are uncorrelated and failures are localized. This is too strong, sorry if I overstated. Mistakes are less correlated and failures are more localized, relative to government control which tends to create strong, long-range correlations. Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without regard to long-term consequences. Definitely. Such actors exist in government, as well. In fact, they dominate government. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
John Williams wrote: Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Williams wrote: there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. You are assuming everyone is a rational actor. By no means is everyone a rational actor. People make mistakes, act emotionally instead of rationally, and generally tend to screw things up. Politicians especially. You argue that diverse decentralized systems work better because mistakes are uncorrelated and failures are localized. This is too strong, sorry if I overstated. Mistakes are less correlated and failures are more localized, relative to government control which tends to create strong, long-range correlations. I'm not sure I agree that mistakes are smaller (less correlated/more localized). What's different between the ability of government actors to make large mistakes vs. the ability of private actors to make large mistakes? Scale-wise, it seems to me that there are several sets of private actors that can generate errors as large or larger than the government can or has. Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without regard to long-term consequences. Definitely. Such actors exist in government, as well. In fact, they dominate government. You're saying there are bad actors all around, then. So what is the answer? Can there be a balance point between two sets of bad actors (government vs. private)? John, you consistently argue for less government regulation, but I don't recall reading your ideas of what should replace government regulation. What are your positive arguments? --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's different between the ability of government actors to make large mistakes vs. the ability of private actors to make large mistakes? Government legally requires actors to behave in certain ways. Private actors must use more subtle means. John, you consistently argue for less government regulation, but I don't recall reading your ideas of what should replace government regulation. Good recall! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scale-wise, it seems to me that there are several sets of private actors that can generate errors as large or larger than the government can or has. What private actor can control $1 trillion dollars in bailouts? Even on a local level, look at the vast amounts of money controlled by politicians as compared to private actors. For example, Orange county, California, has a budget of about $6 billion, managed by five county supervisors. $1,200,000,000 per person per year! That is just one county! Only the largest corporations have anywhere near that amount of money to throw around, and their boards and top management are much more than5 people. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scale-wise, it seems to me that there are several sets of private actors that can generate errors as large or larger than the government can or has. Another example is Congress. It looks likely that the Federal government will spend more than $4 trillion this year. That comes to about $7,500,000,000.00 per congressperson in one year. And very likely about the same amount in the coming years. Name even 10 private actors that can spend $7.5 billion per year indefinitely. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
John Williams wrote: Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's different between the ability of government actors to make large mistakes vs. the ability of private actors to make large mistakes? Government legally requires actors to behave in certain ways. Private actors must use more subtle means. Private actors, with the bounds of government regulation, often have access to potent coercive tactics nearly as strong, if not stronger, than the force of law. John, you consistently argue for less government regulation, but I don't recall reading your ideas of what should replace government regulation. Good recall! I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what should replace government regulation. If you want to have a conversation about what can/should be used instead of government regulation, let's do it. Otherwise I'm done. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what should replace government regulation. If you want to have a conversation about what can/should be used instead of government regulation, let's do it. Otherwise I'm done. I'm with you there. I dropped out of most of these when one conversation reached the point of suggesting that government regulation, and not the 1920's equivalent of particularly clueless day traders, caused the Great Depression. When the conversation goes to places like that, I'm through following it, and to be honest, I'm tired of the repetition of one answer to every problem, because some things are just not nails. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what should replace government regulation. If you want to have a conversation about what can/should be used instead of government regulation, let's do it. Otherwise I'm done. I'm with you there. I dropped out of most of these when one conversation reached the point of suggesting that government regulation, and not the 1920's equivalent of particularly clueless day traders, caused the Great Depression. When the conversation goes to places like that, I'm through following it, and to be honest, I'm tired of the repetition of one answer to every problem, because some things are just not nails. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] tired of the repetition of one answer to every problem, because some things are just not nails. Government regulations are definitely not nails. Ticking time bombs would be a better metaphor. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm done with this conversation since you ducked my question about what should replace government regulation. I'll answer that if you answer my question: How can I predict what the stock market will do over the next year? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dropped out of most of these when one conversation reached the point of suggesting that government regulation, and not the 1920's equivalent of particularly clueless day traders, caused the Great Depression. I don't blame you. It can be devastating to find that one's faith in political gods was misplaced. Denial is human nature. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:13 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Another example is Congress. It looks likely that the Federal government will spend more than $4 trillion this year. That comes to about $7,500,000,000.00 per congressperson in one year. And very likely about the same amount in the coming years. Name even 10 private actors that can spend $7.5 billion per year indefinitely. This is a ridiculous argument. You could just as easily say that the CEO of General Motors spends $172 billion all by himself. But GM has more than a quarter of a million employees and many, many of them participate in the decisions about how their budget is used. And the chairman of GM works for its board of directors and stockholders, which is a far smaller group to answer to than the American people. The federal government is much more than just Congress. And Congress' power to determine how money is spent has some significant limits. They can allocate it, but in the end, the executive branch actually has to go out and spend it...and some departments, such as DoD, have almost complete discretion on how to spend it, or, more importantly, how not to spend it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] You could just as easily say that the CEO of General Motors spends $172 billion all by himself. That is ridiculous. GM's average annual profit over 1998 to 2004 (about a Senate term) was $3.2 billion (they lost money the past 4 years). There are 14 people on the board of directors. That comes to $229 million per person. You are mistaken by a factor of nearly 1000 times. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] You could just as easily say that the CEO of General Motors spends $172 billion all by himself. That is ridiculous. GM's average annual profit over 1998 to 2004 (about a Senate term) was $3.2 billion (they lost money the past 4 years). There are 14 people on the board of directors. That comes to $229 million per person. You are mistaken by a factor of nearly 1000 times. You're flailing, man. You want to compare one organization's profits to another organization's revenue!!! This from the guy who accused somebody else of being unable to read a financial statement. Pot, meet kettle. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] You want to compare one organization's profits to another organization's revenue!!! The Federal budget is not equivalent to corporate revenue. The corporation is only free to spend the profits, unless they want to go bankrupt quickly. And the corporations are severely constrained by laws and government regulations on how they can spend their profits. The Federal government has virtually no chance of going bankrupt, and they make the laws on how the money may be spent. They can spend every dollar of our tax money in any way they desire, and even raise taxes if they want more. But even granting your ridiculous claim of $172 billion, that comes to $12 billion per board member. 14 board members. And you have chosen the second biggest corporation in America. Now you only need to name 521 more people with that kind of spending power to match Congress. If you can do that, then we can talk about hundreds of state legislators and county supervisors. This from the guy who accused somebody else of being unable to read a financial statement. LOL. You've got me there. I don't have your experience with losing money in the housing market or extensive experience with the running of failing businesses. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The Federal budget is not equivalent to corporate revenue. The corporation is only free to spend the profits, unless they want to go bankrupt quickly. Companies aren't allowed to spend their revenue??? What do they have to do with it, put it under the mattress? What planet are you writing from? At this point, the discussion is so absurd that I think I will join the masses who have departed it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Companies aren't allowed to spend their revenue??? What do they have to do with it, put it under the mattress? They must use most of it to fund continuing operations which are necessary for next year's profit. The only continuing operations of the government that are necessary for next year's tax dollars are the IRS. Feel free to subtract the IRS expenses from tax revenue to arrive at Federal profits. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM, John Williamswrote: Now you only need to name 521 more people with that kind of spending power to match Congress. If you can do that, then we can talk about hundreds of state legislators and county supervisors. At this point, the discussion is so absurd that I think I will join the masses who have departed it. I don't blame you for being unable to name 521 more people with the spending power of Congresspeople. I would have been surprised if you could name a few hundred. No need to be ashamed of ducking out of the challenge. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~) Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dropped out of most of these when one conversation reached the point of suggesting that government regulation, and not the 1920's equivalent of particularly clueless day traders, caused the Great Depression. I don't blame you. It can be devastating to find that one's faith in political gods was misplaced. Denial is human nature. I don't recall anyone on the list suggesting that democracy is godlike in its effectiveness. I think and I imagine most others on the list would agree that democracy is flawed, but that it is at least marginally beter than most if not all of the other alternatives, and certainly better than anarchy. Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Regards, Wayne Eddy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Oct 31, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Replace our election system with a lottery, and just draft our leaders? Not sure that wouldn't be better, given the notably dodgy integrity of our current (pre- and post-HAVA) election system and its vulnerability to charismatic but clueless candidates .. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Smaller and cheaper. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~) Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anyone got any suggestions for a better political system? Smaller and cheaper. How does the smaller cheaper political system work? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] How does the smaller cheaper political system work? Badly, but less so. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~) Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] How does the smaller cheaper political system work? Badly, but less so. I was interested in the mechanics of the system, not the result, but never mind. What about a system made up of a number of member states with various constitutions, with a higher federal level above consisting of a representative from each of the 13 member states. The federal level would have very limited power responsibilities, including: 1. Measuring the happiness of the inhabitants of the citizens of each of the member states. 2. Mediating disputes between the states. 3. Every X years replacing the consititution of the state with the greatest drop or smallest increase in average happiness with a constitution based on the constitution of the state with the greatest recorded happiness level, but with one modification. The modfication could be selected from a list of options submitted by the citizens of the state due to have its consitution modified. The above system would tend to be self improving would it not? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about a system made up of a number of member states with various constitutions, with a higher federal level above consisting of a representative from each of the 13 member states. Nice start, but why only 13 member states? :-) The federal level would have very limited power responsibilities, including: 1. Measuring the happiness of the inhabitants of the citizens of each of the member states. 2. Mediating disputes between the states. 3. Every X years replacing the consititution of the state with the greatest drop or smallest increase in average happiness with a constitution based on the constitution of the state with the greatest recorded happiness level, but with one modification. 1) Why trust the government with measuring something as abstract as happiness, if it can be measured at all? I don't think I'd trust even my closest friends and family to measure my happiness. 3) An outside authority comes in and tells all the people living in the state, we are going to change all the major laws of your land, but don't worry, it is for your own good, we want to make you happier! Oh, and we'll let you choose one law for yourself, since we value your freedom. Just let people live where they want to and leave them alone. The above system would tend to be self improving would it not? I'd guess there would be riots if not outright revolutions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Which is why Obama's plan doesn't try to replace that knowledge, Of course the plan doesn't STATE that it will do so. But every time the government bureaucracy gets involved in a system, a complicated set of rules and regulations begins accreting in a vain and ultimately doomed attempt to do just that. any idea why that is? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] any idea why that is? Human nature, I guess. Many people think that they know more than they do, and therefore believe that they can design (or fix) an extremely complicated system when there is really no chance to do so. People don't trust an emergent system, it is too abstract to accept that millions of people individually interacting can actually result in a more efficient solution to a problem than having a strong leader and authority figure in control. Also, I imagine many people find it comforting to have a paternal figure (or figures) in control, guiding and protecting us. It was nice when we were 9 years old, anyway. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People don't trust an emergent system, it is too abstract to accept that millions of people individually interacting can actually result in a more efficient solution to a problem than having a strong leader and authority figure in control. I think that will come with time, but not quickly. Medieval people didn't trust feedback-based systems; now we worship them (democracy, Darwinism, free markets, etc.). There's a huge leap from one to the next. Self-regulation seems impossible when you believe the universe functions as a hierarchy. Self-organization seems impossible when you believe the universe is nothing more than feedback loops. The trouble with trusting a self-organizing system is that we don't have very good mathematics to analyze and predict what they'll do. We certainly know that complex systems of the kind you describe tend to be chaotic, with unpredictable attractor states. I certainly wouldn't want trust our health care system to avoid extrema and attractors that would be unfair to the vulnerable among us. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The trouble with trusting a self-organizing system is that we don't have very good mathematics to analyze and predict what they'll do. We certainly know that complex systems of the kind you describe tend to be chaotic, with unpredictable attractor states. It is obvious that no system is perfect. No matter whether it is a centrally controlled system, or a completely decentralized system, there will be decisions made by people, and people do make mistakes. I'd rather have a fault-tolerant system that tends to evolve toward greater efficiency. With central control, the mistakes tend to be coordinated and are capable of destabilizing the entire system. With a diverse, decentralized system, there will be plenty of mistakes, but they will tend to be uncorrelated and while you may see some local failures, most of the system will continue unabated. And as a bonus, the decentralized system is effectively a massively parallel set of experiments that, through trial and error, can result in evolution towards a more efficient system. I certainly wouldn't want trust our health care system to avoid extrema and attractors that would be unfair to the vulnerable among us. Yes, I think people become emotional and irrational when it comes to health care, and can often end up making bad decisions. But I'd rather have a few thousand small, uncorrelated bad decisions than a small number of gigantic bad decisions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: But I'd rather have a few thousand small, uncorrelated bad decisions than a small number of gigantic bad decisions. Since you mentioned emergence, I was thinking that perhaps you are familiar with the mathematics of complexity. Perhaps not. Even simple Boolean networks produce behaviors that I wouldn't want to trust with my health care! Thousands of small decisions don't just average out. They can produce wild behavior that is inherently unpredictable. They can cycle among attractor states, but those are also unpredictable. Further, there's a whole field of game theory that deals with a gamut of problems like this. One of the more efficient problem-solving solutions, generally speaking, is to divide the players into groups and let the groups compete with each other... something like states' rights, where each can imitate the ones who come up with a successful strategy. The more we can describe and rely on self-regulation and self-organization, the better, but I think only a fool rejects regulation and governance on principle. That's like refusing to adjust the time on a clock because the salesman said it is self-regulating. Or the guy who creates a derivative that tells him what time it is when the clock is wrong. ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even simple Boolean networks produce behaviors that I wouldn't want to trust with my health care! Even well-intentioned father figures can make decisions that I wouldn't want to trust with my health care. I trust myself, and a small number of people who have earned my trust. I certainly do not trust a bunch of politicians and bureacrats. Thousands of small decisions don't just average out. They can produce wild behavior that is inherently unpredictable. If they are coordinated, sure. That's what central control does. If the decisions are uncorrelated, then they DO average out. But that is probably not a useful way of thinking about a geographically diverse health care system, since what variable are you talking about that averages out? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Thousands of small decisions don't just average out. They can produce wild behavior that is inherently unpredictable. If they are coordinated, sure. That's what central control does. If the decisions are uncorrelated, then they DO average out. No. Not when they influence each other. You referred to emergence, but there are no emergent properties when decisions average out. But in reality, such networks of decisions always have emergent properties. Am I correct in assuming you are unfamiliar with the mathematics of complexity? Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] No. Not when they influence each other. You referred to emergence, but there are no emergent properties when decisions average out. But in reality, such networks of decisions always have emergent properties. Why do you think the coordination will be greater with an decentralized system than with government control? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:11 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Why do you think the coordination will be greater with an decentralized system than with government control? I dunno. I didn't even know that I thought that. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care (the same damn topic all f-ing week!~)
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dunno. I didn't even know that I thought that. If you are concerned about chaotic effects in a complicated system with coordination between the elements, then why do you think government control will result in less instability if you don't think it will have less coordination between the elements? Do you imagine that government regulaltion will eliminate the chaos? That would be putting an awful lot of faith in government regulation. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
