Servant

Karma: 57

Servant Oct 7, 2010, 7:09 PM
6 points
on: A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies
“Germany should completely lose all the baggage of Nazism and replace it with a completely democratic society that has no causal linkage whatsoever to its bloody past.”

General Y is advocating for an absolute bastardization of history as much as General F. You cannot deny the past, because the past shaped your country and what your country did. There is a difference between interpreting the “real” meaning of Nazism, and actually erasing Nazism from history, as General Y wants.

General Y also want to place all blame on the the Nazi regime, thereby excusing the rest of the German population for actually supporting the National Socialists to begin with! You aren’t dealing with “militant nationalism” here at all. You’re dealing with HUMAN BEINGS.

Finally, General F could argue that de-Nazification could get out of control, leading to the rise of left wing terrorist groups who argued you haven’t done enough de-Nazification and the only way to remove the “Nazi taint” is to destroy capitalism entirely and surrender to the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#The_radical_left_in_Germany_during_the_1960s.E2.80.9370s_and_Nazi_allegations

Servant Oct 3, 2010, 3:15 AM
2 points
in reply to: Will_Newsome’s comment on: Rational Terrorism or Why shouldn’t we burn down tobacco fields?
You would likely have to, for the simple reason that if Cancer gets cured, more resources can be dedicated to dealing with other diseases, meaning even more lives will be saved in the process (on top of those lives saved due to the curing of Cancer).

The economy can be in shambles for a while, but it can recover in the future, unlike cancer patients..and you could always justifying it that if a banker like you could blow up the economy, it was already too weak in the first place: better to blow it up now when the damage can be limited rather than latter.

Though the reason it doesn’t appeal is because you don’t quote hard numbers, making the consequentalist rely on “value” judgements when doing his deeds...and different consequentalists have different “values”. Your consequentalist would be trying to cure cancer by crashing the economy to raise money for a cancer charity, while a different consequentalist could be embezzling money from that same cancer charity in an attempt to save the economy from crashing.

Servant Oct 1, 2010, 8:53 AM
1 point
on: Hypothetical—Moon Station Government
A ‘technocratic’ Bureacratic Despotism, with the Philanthropist technically in charge.

Before you say otherwise, realize that the OP has asked: “What sort of government do you establish?”, not “What sort of government WOULD you wish to establish?” Regardless of my personal views, the wealthy philanthropist has too much influence and control over the government (by being its sole source of funding) for it to be truly ‘democratic’. I also have to make sure that the system survive and thrive, so I cannot rely on testing out new and exciting ideas, lest the philanthropist sues me when they fail. The safest method for surviving and thriving then would be to rely on a bunch of technocratic experts to handle the government for the philanthropist, and if the government collaspes, it would be the technocrats who are blamed, and not me.

Servant Oct 1, 2010, 8:31 AM
0 points
in reply to: Servant’s comment on: Brain storm: What is the theory behind a good political mechanism?
whpearson and blogospheroid seemed to misunderstood what I said, so I’ll clarify my comments, since I wasn’t being clear.

I don’t think that people come up with new governments for the sole purpose of testing or implementing them. I think that people sometimes come up with new governments as a way to come up a simple answer* to the problems facing society, so they don’t have to think any more about those problems, or waste resources trying to fix these problems conventionally.

*To them, at least. The point of coming up with a new government is to persuade themselves, not others.

Servant Sep 30, 2010, 3:00 AM
0 points
on: Brain storm: What is the theory behind a good political mechanism?
Is the goal of coming up with a mechanism of government really for implementation purposes?

Because I’m worried that the main reason why people come up with strange and new government mechanics that are unlikely to ever be adopted is to claim the following:

“Look! Our people have developed the Viatngvogbvim, and this Viatngvogbvim will solve most of our problems (while creating new ones, but let ignore that for now). Viatngvogbvim will aid our society to prosperity. Too bad it will never be implemented or enacted, but that’s okay, because now that we have found the solution, we don’t need to think of anything else to do with this problem. We don’t need to engage in political compromise anymore, or try to work within the current despicable government system. We can now MOVE ON with our lives, glad that we are content with this secret, hidden knowledge of Viatngvogbvim.”

Servant Sep 30, 2010, 2:47 AM
0 points
in reply to: whpearson’s comment on: Brain storm: What is the theory behind a good political mechanism?
There are other ways of engaging in micronational secessionism. The best method prehaps is to unilaterally declare independence under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, but do so in such a matter as to not attract the attention of the federal government (for example, keep on paying taxes, follow the laws). Then begin operating as if you are an independent government. Examples would include the Republic of Molossia and the Empire of Atlantium. You will lose status though.

The main problem is thinking you could generalize from one small situation into the macrolevel. There may be intervening variables that could explain why a government can succeed with small population and that same government collaspe when it runs a large population.

Servant Sep 30, 2010, 2:21 AM
0 points
in reply to: patrissimo’s comment on: Vote Qualifications, Not Issues
I can’t agree with this idea. The point of government IS to come up with solutions to potential problems (other governments, crime, paying for “public goods”, expanding the freedom of the individual pledging loyalty to the government, protection from the “state of nature”), through a variety of tools, including coercion. The government exist not in and of itself, but exist to produce certain “outcomes” which will favor or harm specific interests.

If we can’t talk about what a future government is actually going to do, then what’s the point of changing to it?

Servant Sep 29, 2010, 2:43 PM
0 points
in reply to: erratio’s comment on: The Direct Democracy Experiment
You don’t know the rules of the simulation, you only know enough to be able to make desicions within it. I think that should limit the ‘informedness’ of the voters in question.

And I am merely testing to see if direct democracy works...at all. If it doesn’t work well here, then it does act as evidence against working in a less “homogenous” society. (I think. Maybe a less “homogenous” society might have a better functioning direct democracy, with new ideas, but I still think one test is better than none.)

Servant Sep 29, 2010, 2:37 PM
1 point
in reply to: Sly’s comment on: The Direct Democracy Experiment
By war, I mean actual war that can result in the destruction of the direct democracy. Your victory in the actual war is dependent on Quality of Life, Economic Strength, and Army Strength.

I think it would be more accurate for voting blocs to propose given policies (representing referendums and initivates). It will also save me the effort for coming up with the actual policy questions myself; the voting blocs will do it for me.

The Direct Democracy Experiment

ServantSep 29, 2010, 4:36 AM

3 points

12 comments1 min readLW link

Servant Sep 28, 2010, 7:53 PM
2 points
in reply to: Perplexed’s comment on: Vote Qualifications, Not Issues
“Yeah, I know I am sliding into Mind Killer territory here. Sorry.”

Is the Mind Killer policy really policy? If it was, your posts would have been downvoted instantly. Instead, you’ve made a total of 24 karma through 3 posts by “sliding” into this Mind Killer territory.

If there is no enforcement (negative Karma) for a policy, and if anybody can hop in Mind Killer territory without suffering any penalty, then this policy doesn’t exist.

Servant Sep 27, 2010, 5:48 PM
0 points
in reply to: dripgrind’s comment on: Vote Qualifications, Not Issues
“The last link says that US found 500 degraded chemical artillery shells from the 1980s which were too corroded to be used but might still have some toxicity. They don’t sound like something that could actually be used to cause mass destruction.”

So just because it doesn’t seem to cause mass destruction according to you, it therefore ISN’T a WMD?

WMDs has nothing to do with mass destruction. According to the US government and international law, WMD (mosly) means: “nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” That’s it. This weapon is classified as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, so by that definition, Saddam had WMDs.

Source: http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

EDIT: Though for the most part, I was called to attention that “WMDs” may have no definiton at all, and instead people use the words NCB instead, for clarification . Also, the source points out that there are new types of WMDs such as conventional weapons and radiological weapons.

Servant Sep 24, 2010, 8:17 AM
5 points
on: Politics as Charity
In a ‘direct democracy’ system where the general population vote directly to change and implement policies, then discussing about the behavior of these individual voters would be sensible.

But in a ‘representative democracy’, like the United States, the people don’t vote directly for policies. They vote for representatives in Congress to ‘represent’ their interests. It is these representatives that actually vote to change and implement policies. The chance of these represenatives casting the deciding vote is ¹⁄₅₃₅ (1/100 in Senate, ¹⁄₄₃₅ in the HoR), and thus is much higher than the chance of an individual casting the deciding vote (1/1,000,000). If politics is charity, then it would be more productive to donate to “assist” the represenatives GOTV (by voting how you want them to vote) than it is to get the average powerless individual to GOTV.

In addition, focusing on elected officals tend to ignore the judicary system and the bureacracy, unelected officals who, nevertheless, make policies just as much as the elected officals do. For example, the FDA rejects and accepts drugs based on criteria it sets, the Fed sets monetary policy and implictly decides the unemployment and inflation rates, the EPA passes environmental regulations that corporations must follow, and the Supreme Court justices rule on important court cases that would impact the lives of millions. “Assisting” those represenatives GOTV would be incredibly lucrative.

Servant

The Direct Democ­racy Experiment

The Direct Democracy Experiment