On 06 Jun 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/6/2014 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2014, at 23:39, LizR wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system
of govt is going to work all the time, but the details are a bit
vague now. Does anyone know what
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of govt
is going to work all the time, but the details are a bit vague now. Does
anyone know what I'm talking about?
No, but I would be interested.
It occurs to
On 05 Jun 2014, at 23:39, LizR wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of
govt is going to work all the time, but the details are a bit vague
now. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Condorcet in the preceding century has reasoned that no system of
There's the Arrow impossibility theorem relating to fundamental
problems with representative democracy, that David Deutsch talks about
in BoI. Is this what you're thinking about?
Cheers
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:39:03AM +1200, LizR wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that
On 6/6/2014 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2014, at 23:39, LizR wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of govt is going to
work all the time, but the details are a bit vague now. Does anyone know what I'm
talking about?
Condorcet in the preceding
On 6 Jun 2014, at 7:39 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of govt is
going to work all the time, but the details are a bit vague now. Does anyone
know what I'm talking about?
I mean in this particular case, obviously. In
On 6 June 2014 10:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
There's the Arrow impossibility theorem relating to fundamental
problems with representative democracy, that David Deutsch talks about
in BoI. Is this what you're thinking about?
Yes that's probably it although I don't
On 7 June 2014 13:17, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
The rot at the heart of every system of government is the enshrinement of
adversarial tribal hunter/gatherer thinking in terms of a government and
its opposition. This is what we lovingly refer to as democracy and the
pathetic
On 6/6/2014 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 June 2014 13:17, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
The rot at the heart of every system of government is the enshrinement of
adversarial tribal hunter/gatherer thinking in terms of a government and its
Brent:
you venture into closing in on *'democracy*': Indeed it is impossible, no
system can involve EVERYBODY's interest/taste/choice/whatever into ONE
system (*Cratos* of the *entire* *Demos*?) so we think of a watered-down
variant: a MAJORITY rule which implies the suppression of a MINORITY (if
I seem to recall some mathematical / logical proof that no system of govt
is going to work all the time, but the details are a bit vague now. Does
anyone know what I'm talking about?
I mean in this particular case, obviously. In general I'm a model of
clarity (insert eye-rolling emoticon here).
On 03 Jun 2014, at 23:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without that unenforceable set of
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a
constitutional
On 4 June 2014 22:43, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2014 22:43, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems
On 6/4/2014 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic
On 4 June 2014 23:10, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2014 22:43, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM,
Interesting.
No, it does not require a Godelian mind neither a average logician
one to understand it:
To amend the constitution there is a procedure in that constitution.
If this procedure is followed, it is possible to change this article
to this other: every morning that our leader (or the
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Interesting.
No, it does not require a Godelian mind neither a average logician
one to understand it:
To amend the constitution there is a procedure in that constitution.
If this procedure is followed, it is
Telmo,
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Although I disagree with the author's
conclusion that the flaw he discovered had to be of a Gödelian type of
self-reference error. Why should every idea Godel comes up with have to be
of the type he is most famous for? They also dismiss other theories
Telmo:
I did not know WHAT GőDEL's objection was, but the story went like this:
When Gődel applied for citizenship, allegedly Einstein(??) warned the US
attorney NOT to let him speak in the examination process, because he is a
theoretician who may not stop explaining his OWN ideas.
The attorney,
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a
constitutional system can derive to anything bad.
I mostly agree. In fact,
On 6/3/2014 11:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Telmo,
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Although I disagree with the author's conclusion
that the flaw he discovered had to be of a Gödelian type of self-reference error. Why
should every idea Godel comes up with have to be of the type he is most
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a
constitutional
On 6/3/2014 2:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic
On 4 June 2014 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
without that unenforceable set of values and compromises, a
constitutional system can
On 4 June 2014 09:15, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by
the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the
government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be
enforced. It is
On 6/3/2014 2:59 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 June 2014 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic mechanisms.
On 4 June 2014 10:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 2:59 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 June 2014 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
That is the great flaw of constitutional systems based on paper
formulas and automatic
On 6/3/2014 4:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 June 2014 10:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2014 2:59 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 June 2014 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/3/2014 9:35 AM, Telmo
On 4 June 2014 11:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Or a revolution, as it's normally known. Indeed, one is overdue.
Really? In NZ?
No, I was thinking of the USA. NZ can get by with a representative
democracy that's only been partly hijacked by the wealthy, at least for a
while
31 matches
Mail list logo
