Re: On Topic shocker!
On 19/11/2008, at 6:20 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: I agree. I would have thought that Australia, New Zealand Canada would be least as good if not better choices than the US Western Europe. Maybe, unless you're born indigenous - which was the point of the thought experiment. Australia, for all her triumphs and successes, still has huge racism. And outside the major cities, pretty bold sexism too. It's a good place to be, but it's not there yet. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On 20/11/2008, at 12:03 AM, Wayne Eddy wrote: On 19/11/2008, at 6:20 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: I agree. I would have thought that Australia, New Zealand Canada would be least as good if not better choices than the US Western Europe. Maybe, unless you're born indigenous - which was the point of the thought experiment. Australia, for all her triumphs and successes, still has huge racism. And outside the major cities, pretty bold sexism too. It's a good place to be, but it's not there yet. Charlie. When you say we aren't there yet, are you saying that in the context of the thought experiment that you would have no hesitation in choosing the United States, or Portugal or Germany over Australia if given the choice? No. I'm saying that I'm not sure I'm convinced that Oz, NZ and Canada would be at least as good if not better than the US or W. Europe - the point of the thought experiment is that it throws you to a place in an unpredictable position, so you have to consider the worst positions as well as the best and the mean. And having spent a large chunk of time travelling solo and self-propelled through Oz, I'd say that there are enough niches I'd be unhappy with that it's not as clear cut a die-throw as I'd like. It's a fuck-load better than 40 or even 20 years ago, but Oz has a way to go to be the egalitarian fair- go for all that she would like to portray herself to be. That's not to say I don't love this country. I do - I would not have settled here otherwise. But I'm happy to admit the warts. And having lived in a handful of countries and visited a few tens of countries, I'd say that Canada, NZ, Oz, France, the nordic countries all offer much to Random Citizen. But a place that's doing OK by its people, even well, isn't immune to critique. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Olin Elliott wrote: I agree. Ask just about anyone this question: supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any soceity on Earth -- you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level will be, even what gender or nationality you will be -- the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. In most of the rest of the world, the odds would be stacked against you. Provided you were not an immigrant, and provided you didn't have to endure the lottery of a pregnancy - in this case, there would be an enormous chance that you would be preemptively eliminated. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On 20/11/2008, at 12:18 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: It's a fuck-load better than 40 or even 20 years ago, but Oz has a way to go to be the egalitarian fair- go for all that she would like to portray herself to be. ...responding to my own post... but I'd like to say that in the corporate world in Melbourne where I work and reside these days, the one barrier that is no more as far as I can tell is the gender one, thank goodness. Where I work, I'm surrounded by smart successful women as well as men at similar proportion of the workforce, and I see little issue with this. It's a good place to be. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On 19/11/2008, at 6:20 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: I agree. I would have thought that Australia, New Zealand Canada would be least as good if not better choices than the US Western Europe. Maybe, unless you're born indigenous - which was the point of the thought experiment. Australia, for all her triumphs and successes, still has huge racism. And outside the major cities, pretty bold sexism too. It's a good place to be, but it's not there yet. Charlie. When you say we aren't there yet, are you saying that in the context of the thought experiment that you would have no hesitation in choosing the United States, or Portugal or Germany over Australia if given the choice? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is why people like constitutional government. Pretty much everyone means to include, when they trumpet the supremacy and desirability of democracy, a definition of democracy that includes some form of constitutional protection for minority rights. Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. It is really amazing how people can fool themselves about their government. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. Non-wealthy people living in the modern democracies enjoy the greatest freedoms and wealth available to the non-elite in human history. With the possible exception of pre-farming/pre-nation state humanity where everyone was pretty much equally well off in the prosperous environments. But you'd have to make a value judgement on how much you value modern amenities for that one. There is an argument to be made that, oh say, a thousand years ago the simple life of a healthy peasant farmer was rewarding and enoyable living with the soil and not being burdened by too much philosophy - but that's just saying people who have found their niche have a good thing. You can find your niche today. The point is that systematically you're better off in a modern democracy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically I agree. Ask just about anyone this question: supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any soceity on Earth -- you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level will be, even what gender or nationality you will be -- the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. In most of the rest of the world, the odds would be stacked against you. Olin - Original Message - From: Euan Ritchiemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. Non-wealthy people living in the modern democracies enjoy the greatest freedoms and wealth available to the non-elite in human history. With the possible exception of pre-farming/pre-nation state humanity where everyone was pretty much equally well off in the prosperous environments. But you'd have to make a value judgement on how much you value modern amenities for that one. There is an argument to be made that, oh say, a thousand years ago the simple life of a healthy peasant farmer was rewarding and enoyable living with the soil and not being burdened by too much philosophy - but that's just saying people who have found their niche have a good thing. You can find your niche today. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically Maybe not at certain points in history, but the American system -- even more so than the British system before it -- is remarkable in the degree that it has managed, over the course of its existence, to continually expand the scope of who is included under the Constitutional system. Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:05 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any society on Earth you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level will be, even what gender or nationality you will be the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. I'll stick to my South Pacific paradise thank you very much. I agree. I would have thought that Australia, New Zealand Canada would be least as good if not better choices than the US Western Europe. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional associations of various disciplines? If they were nominated by their scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:59 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Posting on topic? You just asking to be moderated, aren't you? Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more advisers on science and technology. The idea of organizing them into this shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work. For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Ray Ludenia wrote: On Nov 16, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Olin Elliott wrote: I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group, that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability. Speaking of the illustrious patron, I just read an interesting little suggestion he made in Discover magazine, giving advice on what the next POTUS needs to do for science. http://snipurl.com/5nwoy [blogs_discovermagazine_com] The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Maybe I will name my rock band Shadow Scientific Artists. ;-) /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Posting on topic? You just asking to be moderated, aren't you? Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more advisers on science and technology. The idea of organizing them into this shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work. For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. When I saw that your name in the comments was clickable, I was expecting to see a link to your blog. Clever as you are, you showed me that I am already reading it. ;-) /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Claes Wallin [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I saw that your name in the comments was clickable, I was expecting to see a link to your blog. Clever as you are, you showed me that I am already reading it. ;-) Ah, you have discovered what little marketing I do for Brin-L. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Olin Elliott wrote: For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional associations of various disciplines? If they were nominated by their scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. Just to add to the shock of on-topic discussion. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist? The Right has sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think critically is an elitist who couldn't possibly understand the problems of soccer moms and joe six pack. What would they think of a council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution? Olin - Original Message - From: Claes Wallinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:43 AM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! Olin Elliott wrote: For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional associations of various disciplines? If they were nominated by their scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. Just to add to the shock of on-topic discussion. /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist? The Right has sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think critically is an elitist who couldn't possibly understand the problems of soccer moms and joe six pack. What would they think of a council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution? Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Before getting too excited about a substantial majority, note that Obama got 52% of the popular vote. I think it is worth remembering that 48% of the voters did not vote for Obama. That is tens of millions of people who did not choose to be ruled by Obama. If it were me, I would be extremely reluctant to force my ideas on tens of millions of people who did not give me their consent. I would set myself extremely high standards for certainty that changes that I want to force onto those people are the right thing to do. Similar to a doctor, whose guiding principle is do no harm, I would need to be certain that any treatments I prescribe are not going to cause any harm to the patients. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Well, we elected an elite president, not he same thing as being eletiest -- unless being raised by a single mother and grandmother, earning a scholarship to college and working your way through Harvard make you an elitist but being born a millionaire and getting into ivy league schools on your father's influence (Bush) or being the son and grandson of Admirals and marrying a multi-millionaire (McCain) makes you just plain folks. There is a different between being elite -- well educated, skilled and intelligent -- and being an elitist. I think its pretty clear which of our politicians fall under which label. I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I had the same thought about the rate of atomic decay. I haven't looked it up on Conservapedia yet. Olin - Original Message - From: Nick Arnettmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:38 AM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power. But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist? The Right has sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think critically is an elitist who couldn't possibly understand the problems of soccer moms and joe six pack. What would they think of a council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution? Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Nick Arnett wrote: Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar activity. I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old. Maybe one day when I am _really_ with good humour and plenty of time I will write about it. Something like adding a deceit factor to the calculations of radioactive decay. And honest god will have a deceit factor of zero, meaning that apparent 4.5 billion year old rocks are 4.5 billion year old. A very mischevous and deceitful god would have a big deceit factor, meaning that apparent 4.5 billion year old rocks are only 6 thousand years old. Alberto Monteiro (and I won't tell the sock puppets I use to contribute to the uncyclopedias...) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:25 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: That is tens of millions of people who did not choose to be ruled by Obama. Ruled???! I don't think we elected a dictator. If it were me, I would be extremely reluctant to force my ideas on tens of millions of people who did not give me their consent. There's your funny definition of consent. I consented to be ruled, I mean governed, by GWB for the last eight years, but I sure didn't vote for him. If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country or worked to overthrow our form of government. Do you imagine that all the people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. Well, we elected an elite president, not he same thing as being eletiest -- unless being raised by a single mother and grandmother, earning a scholarship to college and working your way through Harvard make you an elitist but being born a millionaire and getting into ivy league schools on your father's influence (Bush) or being the son and grandson of Admirals and marrying a multi-millionaire (McCain) makes you just plain folks. There is a different between being elite -- well educated, skilled and intelligent -- and being an elitist. I think its pretty clear which of our politicians fall under which label. In case it wasn't clear, I agree. I omitted the sarcasm tags. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruled???! I don't think we elected a dictator. What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country or worked to overthrow our form of government. Do you imagine that all the people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things? Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. A 7 ~ 8% margin isn't substantial. Surely it only seems that way compared to recent razor thin elections? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and ruled by monarchs. Bush acts as monarch when he imprisons people without judicial and legal oversight (even when he later feels compelled to try his victims in a star chamber), the U.S has yet to see if Obama will claim such authority. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruled???! I don't think we elected a dictator. What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? Why, if that person is convicted, he or she will face the penalties the law provides for. And, all mandates are a matter of perception. If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country or worked to overthrow our form of government. Do you imagine that all the people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things? Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? Certainly citizens have avenues open to them in which they can seek to have a particular law repealed. If that political process fails, one may seek to have the law declared unconstitutional. If the law passes constitutional muster, one either accepts the law and abides by it, or one chooses to ignore it. Technically speaking, if one ignores a law, one is in rebellion. Of course, it is our revolutionary right, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, to rebel against an unjust government. Or one can leave the country. But more likely, one will just complain. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and ruled by monarchs. In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above. Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that people are being ruled by those they did not choose. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and ruled by monarchs. In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above. Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that people are being ruled by those they did not choose. Well yeah, although the rule of law rather than monarchs is an important distinction it's absolutely true that we all live with some sort of compulsion hanging over us. The philosophical underpinning of democracy is that having free elections means that elected governments operate with the consent of the governed - it is an implied social contract that even those who voted for an opposition still consent to be governed by the elected. If you vote you participate in the contract. If you don't and maintain all government is evil and to be resisted, well, you're just fighting reality. One way or the other the vacuum of power will be filled. If not by the elected then by the unelected. If not by the forceful then by the wealthy, if not by the wealthy then by the admired. It'll be someone. Best for all of us if we cooperate to create the best situation for everyone. There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies and how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born. What society to you design? And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is something a monarch does separate from governance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? Missed high school civics class, did you? Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject. Try searching on democracy. Nick Lapsing into sarcasm far too often ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On 17 Nov 2008, at 21:43, Euan Ritchie wrote: There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies and how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born. The 'original position' of Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_. What society to you design? And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is something a monarch does separate from governance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Prerequisite Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject. Try searching on democracy. Couldn't find it. But I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Lapsing into sarcasm far too often Excellent! That's the first step towards kicking the political hero worship habit. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Nick Arnett wrote: Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject. Try searching on democracy. Found it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy#The_Bush_Administration Oops, the page was vandalized :-( Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject. Try searching on democracy. Couldn't find it. But I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Too bad it barely applies, though you may have a point that we seem to be heading in that direction. We still have a constitution, bill of rights and parliamentary style legislature... although the constitution seems to be increasingly weakened by conservatives. We are still a democracy, not a demarchy. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? It doesn't seem like there is much middle ground. Consent means, as much as I can tell, remaining in the community and following its laws. If I do that, I have consented to be governed, right? Olin - Original Message - From: John Williamsmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:32 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruled???! I don't think we elected a dictator. What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being ruled? If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country or worked to overthrow our form of government. Do you imagine that all the people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things? Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country / start a rebellion? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Which is why people like constitutional government. Pretty much everyone means to include, when they trumpet the supremacy and desirability of democracy, a definition of democracy that includes some form of constitutional protection for minority rights. It's implied in the concept of democracy that though a minority may be in opposition to the winner of an election that for them to remain parties to the social contract they cannot be abused for being parties to it. There are minimum standards to be met or the concept of being granted authority to govern by the governed is nullified. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Topic shocker!
On Nov 16, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Olin Elliott wrote: I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group, that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability. Speaking of the illustrious patron, I just read an interesting little suggestion he made in Discover magazine, giving advice on what the next POTUS needs to do for science. http://snipurl.com/5nwoy [blogs_discovermagazine_com] The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea of a shadow scientific Congress sounds like an idea with merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended to economists, lawyers, artists etc. Posting on topic? You just asking to be moderated, aren't you? Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more advisers on science and technology. The idea of organizing them into this shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work. For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a body that has any sort of transparency. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
