From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 21 2002 - 17:42:29 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
Even if it correlates somewhat well, you
might want another level of selection to avoid evil geniuses. (Having
low IQ people vote on the laws does not get around this. If someone's
much smarter than than any human, I might be able to better manipulate
the rest into thinking something is for their own good... Think of how
easy it is right now to manipulate people with the War on Terror...)
### If the lone evil genius infiltrates the upper chamber, he wont win the
majority there. If the evil SI (whether the 1 in 1e100 human supergenius or
an AI) is around, we are screwed no matter what political system you have,
if any. Ditto for the simple majority of smart persons being evil.
-------
> I don't quite understand the question regarding
> ethnic groups here. Gender differences in
> cognition might have an impact on
> the ability to govern but I feel we have insufficient
> data to decide in which direction they go (are
> women better than men at governance?).
Well, e.g., if the parenthetic remark is correct, then you do have a
problem, since men have an average IQ that that's lower than women's yet
at the extremes men tend to have fatter tails. I.e., there are more
very high IQ men than high IQ women (and more very low IQ men than very
low IQ women). IIRC, the very high and lows are completely saturated
with men. This would mean that if women were better for some reason or
other at governing, then under your system we'd have more men in the
upper house of your legistlature who are not as good at this role.
### If there was a sizeable but undefined and immeasurable mystery factor
X making women better at governing, this indeed would make the upper
chamber (selected by a gender-blind method) suboptimal. I guess you cant
account fully for the unknown, can you?
Id welcome suggestions as to how the X-factor could be measured and
incorporated into the system.
-------
E.g., in many European countries, such as Italy and Germany,
crime rates are higher among recent immigrants. Does this mean these
differences are unreal? No. It might mean crime is higher for a
different reason than pure ethnic differences, such as poverty or lack
of assimilation into mainstream culture. Even if it does mean only
that, surely you wouldn't want a sortitionist process to select people
more likely to crime to be selected for your upper house, no?
### I dont know about European countries, but at least in the US, almost
all of the crime rate differences between ethnic groups can be accounted for
by IQ differences, according to The Bell Curve.
------
Why not just go for the market here period? After all, your demarchy
would still be, as I pointed out, a monopoly.
### Yes, you are right.
<snip about exit options>
### Again, yes.
---- > ### You are right. However, so far I haven't heard of a good, > competitive way of managing large-scale violence, fraud > and enslavement, therefore the singleton solution embodied > in a government is, by default, the only one. I > can think about making it less dangerous and > more efficient but not about > dispensing with it altogether. I disagree on all these counts. ### Let me explain - the state is the embodiment of large-scale violence. It doesnt manage violence - it is violence. Yet, as less virulent bacteria can displace the more dangerous ones, a lesser evil can be chosen in the form of a government, usually controlled by more or less democratic means. I do not know of a non-governmental way of displacing a government. As I keep asking you, who will keep the (organized) gunmen away, if not the gunmen who work for you? Tell me of a working, competitive, exit-type, market based protector from a government, and Ill join your party. Similar considerations apply to the provision of certain types of trusted information (fraud prevention), and prevention of monopolies (enslavement, sorry for the loosely applied term). ----- A summons is a means of forcing one to participate in a particular government court. I don't believe historically summons were used. ### OK, I guess we were talking about different types of a court. But, say, somebody kills my dog on my land. When I ask him which court he would like to use to settle the issue with me, he tells me to fuck off. If the court of my choice cant force him to show up, I am wasting my money there. What if they can try in absentia, and send bailiffs to enforce? He says, its the dogs fault, it needed killing, being an ugly mutt, he doesnt recognize my court (or indeed, any court), and if the bailiffs come to get him, its initiation of violence, so he will set off his nukes. Whats the solution? Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:20 MST