The most powerful woman in the world...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
Next: Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
From: Sorcerer on 14 Sep 2006 06:03 "Tom Potter" <tdp1001(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4508ec81$0$19691$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... | The bottom line problem is that a better system of government | needs to be invented, [list of desirable guv'ment attributes]. The Androclean system of Government. Basic requirements for life: 1) Maintain Body Temperature. A human being will die of exposure to the elements within hours. 2) Water. A human being will die without water within days. 3) Food. A human being will die without food within weeks. The lone individual must provide these for himself. A society is a group who divide the labour among themselves and share shelter, clothing, food and water. So... a percentage of the population has to be employed in building homes, tailoring, fetching water and farming. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, you are! To ensure a fair division of labour, government issued money is used. You work to earn paper or metal tokens, then you spend those tokens on a house, clothes, food and water. Or you opt out and build your own home, grow or hunt your own food, dig your own well. With the introduction of money, theft raises its ugly head. Now the society needs a policeman, a banker and a jailer, and to administer these specialists a form of government is required to ensure fair division of labour and of wealth resulting from that labour. Ok, so we go it alone, or we need government. We can still make igloos and hunt seals or penguins if we so choose, but few of us want to do that. Without going into details, history has shown democracy to be the best option. If we are to invent a better system of government then we must invent a better system of democracy, but the farming and building and tailoring and banking and policing and jailing and water pumping still has to be done, and perhaps some of us would like to trade jobs fetching eggs instead of water. In other words we want flexibility, not rigidity. So... here is my proposal for a better system of government. Everyone has a vote, but must elect a group leader who then has an N-vote (where N is maybe 10 or 20 individuals), and speaks the will of the group. That's it. You've now given your vote to someone who speaks for you, but it is someone you know, a neighbour, relative, sibling, parent, acquaintance, anyone you choose, and at any time. If you do not like the way that person conducts himself on your behalf, join a different group or vote a new group leader, at ANY time. If you do, then you are happy. If you are the person elected, then you are a group leader. Group leaders must elect a leader of group leaders who then has an MxN-vote, the will of the group of groups. This person will also have a role in government, he could be a policeman or jailer or banker, for example, and has the responsibility of the wishes of 100 to 200 people. If you want this job, get yourself elected. If not, don't. The next stage is for the police level group to elect a judge, after that for the judges to elect mayors, mayors to elect senators and senators to elect a president who has a HxIxJxKxLxMxN-vote and is the ultimate ruler. Nobody's term of office is fixed. *YOU* do not get to elect a president, you've had your vote and you trusted your group leader to vote on your behalf. If you don't like it, join a group of people who share your views. If that president, who remains a member of the lowest group and a group leader, is ousted at the lowest group level, he was in the wrong group to start with and should join a different group, because he was certainly wanted by the majority. However, he can be tumbled at any time by his own immediate neighbours and at ANY group level. It is the will of the people that will keep him in power. So how do you start this new and better system of government? Simple. Get 10 people together and elect one of them. But you won't. You'd rather gripe that a better system of government needs to be invented (by someone else, you are too lazy). Let's try it. I vote for Tom Potter. Anyone want to second me? Androcles.
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Sep 2006 06:03 In article <rmVNg.4$45.58(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <ee8j4b$8ps_002(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <1158103280.048027.246320(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>tadchem wrote: >>>> Edward Green wrote: >>>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of >>>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the >>>> > University of Leipzig. >>>> > >>>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of >>>> > thermodynamics. >>>> >>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership >>>> competence. >>> >>>Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position >>>of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA. >> >>I used to think so, too. I don't know anymore. >> >Judging based on the technically educated people I knoe, most of them >are quite poorly qualified for positions of leadership. Yea, the ones I knew could lead unofficially but quit when the politics became the number one item on each agenda. However, the way we seem to train those MBAs and lawyers today omits physical laws and concentrates on spin bytes. The reason I used to think tech people would be better is because they know the limits of the universe. But then there is that pesky problem of pleasing all people all the time...or appearing to do so. /BAH
From: Roedy Green on 14 Sep 2006 07:24 On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:40:35 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp1001(a)yahoo.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >The best government would be one that >served the masses, yet provided the protection to >the movers and shakers that is needed to provide >the vision, the resources and the hard work >needed to bring costly, long-term projects on line, The biggest problem now is corporations can buy the legislators because it costs so much to run a campaign. What if you went to the other extreme and there was ZERO campaign budget permitted? All you got were some televised debates, a website page to have your positions on various issues posted sided by side. You could collect endorsements on your website. This would be much more like campaigning was in the 1800s. But no more swamping with TV ads without rebuttal. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Sep 2006 07:41 In article <aqeig2lf0c3u9916kcft9f4rgt1m8r8u9m(a)4ax.com>, Roedy Green <see_website(a)mindprod.com.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:40:35 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp1001(a)yahoo.com> >wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >> >>The best government would be one that >>served the masses, yet provided the protection to >>the movers and shakers that is needed to provide >>the vision, the resources and the hard work >>needed to bring costly, long-term projects on line, > >The biggest problem now is corporations can buy the legislators >because it costs so much to run a campaign. > >What if you went to the other extreme and there was ZERO campaign >budget permitted? All you got were some televised debates, a website >page to have your positions on various issues posted sided by side. >You could collect endorsements on your website. This would be much >more like campaigning was in the 1800s. I think your idea would require Taminy(sp?) Halls to be reinvented. > >But no more swamping with TV ads without rebuttal. This won't work. Consider that what would have been a TV ad 10 years ago was presented as fact in a news report. Your proposed law about providing equal ad time wouldn't cover this. /BAH
From: mmeron on 14 Sep 2006 13:13
In article <eeb9cq$8qk_001(a)s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >In article <rmVNg.4$45.58(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>In article <ee8j4b$8ps_002(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>In article <1158103280.048027.246320(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>tadchem wrote: >>>>> Edward Green wrote: >>>>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of >>>>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the >>>>> > University of Leipzig. >>>>> > >>>>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of >>>>> > thermodynamics. >>>>> >>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership >>>>> competence. >>>> >>>>Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position >>>>of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA. >>> >>>I used to think so, too. I don't know anymore. >>> >>Judging based on the technically educated people I knoe, most of them >>are quite poorly qualified for positions of leadership. > >Yea, the ones I knew could lead unofficially but quit when the >politics became the number one item on each agenda. However, >the way we seem to train those MBAs and lawyers today omits >physical laws and concentrates on spin bytes. The reason I used >to think tech people would be better is because they know the >limits of the universe. That's true, but ... But then there is that pesky problem >of pleasing all people all the time...or appearing to do so. > ....or at least pleasing enough people, at any given time, to be able to keep going. That's where the real problem is. Clausevitz, who is still one of the greatest authorities on war ever, wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc. So, when this is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military (Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more complex it is within the framework of an open society. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |