2015-05-12 9:23 GMT+09:00 Zenaan Harkness <[1]zen@freedbms.net>:

   I appreciate your sentiment and what I perceive as your implicit
   "folks, consider being cautious" but when you say "fix that" the
   obvious question is "how"?

   The how is slightly easier to answer, it is just a how-to-get-there.
   The where to go is the real issue.

   I don't know that -any- system can fix any other system except to
   appear to do so for a limited period of time until it too degenerates
   due to the usual problems - individual human weaknesses (greed, lust,
   anger, unwarranted reactions etc).

   Is this the problem? Human collective madness seems to have fostered
   first kings and such royalty, whom then managed things as they did. Now
   we live in a more Roman-like empire, where populism rules because the
   crowd does. I suspect intentional market-expansion tactics found a
   happy marriage with "American Imperialism" in providing a certain brand
   of democracy around the world. It's not even obvious if that's good or
   bad. It sure has a certain efficiency to it. And with the expert
   management of the superwealthy we're practically guaranteed of
   capitalistic democracy's success.
   I simply do not know what's best. So I tried to avoid the discussion
   for the nonce. I am certain that a world in which people's lives are
   continuously on the line is not one I'd like to live in. Less violence
   is more efficient, too, as less is materially lost in conflict. The
   police are not brainy philosophy types, so long as they do what they're
   supposed to (represent the law, that is) you should not blame them at
   all. Better to be systematic about solving issues.
   Petty crime and petty policing is a mayor grievance. Why have the petty
   laws? If it's hidden taxation, maybe it's just better that way. Why
   else is it done? Don't hate the player, hate the game. Current politics
   puts the masses in charge. They chose them that chose these laws.

   Do you actually believe there's an answer to -how- to "fix it"?

   There is. The answer changes depending on what you care about, but
   there is.

   Or, are you uncomfortable with this discussion?

   The democracy discussion is an exceedingly uncomfortable one. The
   largest problem is pragmatism. Reality is cruel, yet I'd like not to
   be. A simple example is having longer or shorter working days. Longer
   working days (might, it's just an example) make a more productive
   society, yet it is not something I'd necessarily want.
   Reality is also intricate in it's interconnections, and amazing in it's
   diversity. It is exceedingly hard to talk about. I suspect we'll
   continue muddling in murky waters until we find a way to
   collaboratively apply something like First Order Formal Logic. A sort
   of Wikipedia, but it would be an encyclopedia of arguments. Enter your
   axiom's and get your logical conclusions. Unfortunately, ArgueOnlineTM
   is a project I'd rather watch than start.

   If you believe that this discussion is counter productive to what you
   perceive as your and or our interests I'm interested to hear about;
   but although "fix it" it sounds superficially laudable it's cheap and,
   well, superficial.  You'll need to pontificate a little more deeply to
   impress folks around these parts :)

   Seems much like I just need to troll harder... I don't see much in
   terms of discussion solutions at all.
   I've been thinking frequently about map-reduce politics. I feel like a
   lot of trouble comes from a lack of involvement in politics, partly due
   to corruption and whatnot making involvement mostly a pesky annoyance.
   And partly because people don't know how to be involved, can't be
   bothered to spend the time to learn, and well, because it doesn't
   matter anyway. Individual opinions are irrelevant, unless you're
   elected, in which case it matters quite much quite suddenly.
   So, what we do:
   Starting with a population we convene in groups of 20. These groups
   elect a single person to represent them (not to rule them, but to
   represent). They can do so with a 16/20 agreement, if they fail to
   achieve that agreement they will not be represented. The grouping
   method should be geographic by default, but allow people to form groups
   at will. A variation with randomized groups provides weaker convergence
   as geography correlates with cultural norms, and does not provide
   greater safety per se.
   This first level electorate (1 person out of every 20) will also form
   into groups of 20, and again elect a single person. This causes a tree
   like structure, leading up to a top level of less than 20 people which
   will not select an elected (there is no president of the world).
   It scales decently
   ^1 20 (very small school class)
   ^2 400 (a moderate/small school)
   ^3 8,000
   ^4 160,000 (two very large football stadiums (like Real Madrid's)
   ^5 3,200,000 (~population of Kuwait/Uruguay/Lithuania)
   ^6 64,000,000 (~population of the UK/Thailand)
   ^7 1,280,000,000 (~population of India/China)
   ^8 25,600,000,000 (about 4 times humanity, top council will be 6
   people)
   (group size rationale, skip if you don't care) I chose 20 because
   larger groups are favorable, to cause lower levels to have a higher
   degree of professionalism. Additionally 20 * 7 (=140) is still an
   almost first-name-possible group size. I also think 8 layers seems like
   a good quantity. Reducing the group size to 10 causes there to be 10
   levels, with the highest being 7/10 filled. There's some chance
   there'll exist an 11th level in the not-too-distant future, the 20
   groupings are expected to be stable even with "optimistic" population
   growth estimates. Importantly, I think 20 provides a good balance of
   being able to get to know people, yet not uncomfortably personally.
   Culture and other factors may make tweaking of group sizes favorable.
   Especially in remote regions it may be hardly/unfeasible to group into
   neat groups. This effect is noncritical.
   Every level is allowed to make law for the levels below it. The extend
   of permissible law is limited by higher level law.  In accordance with
   the laws the levels may levy taxes and manage budgets. If law permits
   they may contract natural/legal persons to perform tasks, even legal
   persons of their own making.
   Somewhat interesting to note is that this is not at all a peaceful
   setup. Every representative will continue to fight for it's group's
   unfair advantage. I would hope the highest level will create a legal
   person that is exclusively granted military rights, with elaborate
   safeguards, so as to enforce a demilitarized planet (let's at least get
   that out of the way as best we can..). Similarly I imagine multiple
   levels of courts. I wish for free migration, because we are all human
   and our place of birth was not a choice, but who am I?
   After all it will be an exceedingly fair struggle. A very pure form of
   democracy, with exceptional clarity of authority and robustness in
   growth. It would fail only because of the people. But to my sorrow, it
   just might.

References

   1. mailto:zen@freedbms.net