Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters

• Previous message: The Half A Wannabe: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• In reply to: The Half A Wannabe: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• Next in thread: quality computer systems: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:29:33 -0000

The Half A Wannabe wrote:
> Oh Beth, you litle tramp :-)

Love you too ;)

> Of fucking course Broadband democra(z/c)y would work ! It would be
fucking
> great ! (with an irish accent) It would STILL be representative
democrazy,
> since it would not be required to vote. Only people who wanted to,
and thus
> wore interessted in politics would bother to vote. Probably about
the same
> people who are interessted today + the people who are intressted and
also
> has less oportunity to do so today. And they would not need to spend
> enourmous time on it. In short here is my solution. You would have
to use
> your imagination and fill in the gaps. Since I am only interested in
the
> idea enough to outline it.

Okay, fine...implement it...prove to me it would work and be
"great"...I mean, I'm happy with that because I can't really lose...if
I'm right, then I get the "told you so" pleasure...and if I was wrong,
then that means we get a "fucking great" system out of it..."win /
win"...suits me...so, have a go...report back and tell me if you could
get it to work...

> ASSUME SECURITY IS POSSIBLE:
> 1. Put all public information in an ordered, searchable database.
Include
> public documents, resources, etc etc. Everything that is public
property.

Such as "race" and "religion" records?

Because, during WWII, I think it was Belgium who had government
records on each person that included certain information...such as
"religion" and "address"...the Nazis used this information to round up
certain people - like Jews - in double quick time, which had been more
difficult in other countries which hadn't compiled such detailed
information...

Hey, include a photo of everyone in the information and then the Nazi
officer can cross-reference your face with the photo so that you can't
simply lie that you're someone different...include fingerprints, eye
scans or other biometric details and then there's no chance of
escape...

Better yet, with genetic details on record, an enterprising modern
Mengler could work on "custom viruses" that leave Ayrians alone but
cleanly wipe out just the black people by using particular genetic
attributes unique to black people that aren't in white people...

Sounds like a Megalomaniac's wet dream...but, carry on...perhaps you
can somehow retrieve people's "Civil Liberties" with one of your other
ideas...

> 2. Assign keys to all people of the country so they can log on to
the
> seperate system with positive identity, but with their identity
hidden
> in their keys.

"I'm not a number! I'm a free man!"
[ No.5, the Prisoner ]

If the keys relate to their identities then there's a means to
"decode" keys into identities...the algorithm will be known by someone
and could be cracked...no such thing as an uncrackable safe,
unfortunately...

Out of interest, if you're not particularly interested in people's
identities in any form, then what's the point in all this expensive,
complex "assigning keys" stuff about? Isn't that just setting up a
pretty serious "single point of failure" in that someone may work out
how to relate keys to identities and then, in one fell swoop, they've
got access to a person's entire life...

Resting an entire person's life on a single "password", however clever
the algorithm to hide it, is a security nightmare...it's a "single
point of catastrophic failure"...get the identity from the key and
then the _whole lot_ is opened up wide...there's also another concern:
"lack of biodiversity"...if the algorithm to disguise identities from
keys is the same for all records then once you've cracked one identity
from a key, then you've effectively cracked them all...

So, this is perhaps the most dangerous "single point of catastrophic
failure" in security history...if you manage to crack the algorithm -
a single entity - then you've suddenly got yourself control over
_every single person's life_ in the entire database...

And, basically, the prospect to a cracker that all they have to do is
crack _one_ security device in order to become effectively "god" is a
temptation of astronomical proportions...every single cracker in
existence will be using anything and everything to break this "single
point of failure"...because once they crack it, they have control over
an entire nation and every single person in that nation to whatever
minute detail they choose...

And, here's another "nice" prospect for you...this database controls
_everything_...welfare, income, personal details, bank account,
genetic details, medical history, votes, control of power stations,
control of the nuclear arsenal, etc....the _whole lot_ in someone's
life and every aspect of an entire nation, all in one centralised
database...and this cracker is a "cyber-anarchist" (there's,
unfortunately, "a lot of them about" ;)...so, what s/he simply does is
_format_ the whole thing...wipe out every single bit of
information...because, in one fell swoop, then they've got their
"cyber anarchy" by "conveniently" being given the power for cracking
_one_ algorithm, due to someone thinking "techno-fix" and NOT thinking
sufficiently about "biodiversity", "Civil Liberties", "single point of
failure" and other Civil Liberty and security and safety issues...

When the DoD invented the internet, there was one overriding design
goal: for this communications network to be able to survive an all-out
nuclear onslaught from the Soviet Union...this lead to the thing that,
in fact, permitted the internet to mushroom out of anyone's control
and become the "global" network: the "network that no-one owns that
cannot be censored"...that was _de-centralisation_...there is no
"centre"...no _one_ target to hit...no "single point of failure"...the
design was 100% "de-centralise, de-centralise, de-centralise"...and,
as the internet has developed, many different protocols have
developed, introducing a "biodiversity" to the communications...in
fact, the only "weak link" in the chain - which turned up _after_ the
DoD gave it up to the "public domain" - is DNS (though, if you use IP
addresses directly then that's not so bad)...and TCP/IP itself, as
there's no "biodiversity" there (because of the need for a "standard"
for the whole internet for communication purposes)...

The other thing about this "de-centralised" network is that the cost
of it is spread out...imagine trying to create a network of the size
and capacity of the internet as a "personal" project with your own
finances...not even Bill Gates getting ten times richer could afford
to construct it...we also have _duplication_...which is sometimes
thought of as a "bad thing"...but, actually, when the Human Genome
project wanted the genetic information of the human race to be "public
domain", competing against a private project attempting the same but
which wanted to "patent" humanity itself, the internet was the
means...when things were discovered and decoded, the information was
put up on the internet directly...this was good enough because someone
somewhere could copy the information onto their hard drive...once
information hits the internet, it can no longer be controlled, no
longer be hidden, no longer be controlled, no longer can people hold
information over other people...the duplication - "mirror" sites - is,
perhaps, one of humanities greatest freedoms in a very weird way...

> 3. Assign officials different access to the system. E.g a doctor
would know
> his patient name, but when he send out a prescription or contact
other
> officials, he just passes the key/and his own key. Only people with
propper
> access can view the patients true identity. If the patient is
applying for
> welfare because of illness, his identity is not needed, only the
facts of
> the case. Money can be routet back to the account of the patient
without
> anyone but the doctor knowing the patents true identify. Also,
scientists
> and statistical personell might have free information about all the
facts of
> the case, except for the patients identity. This is just one of many
> examples.

Who decides? "Who watches the watchmen"?

For example, in the UK, the Home Secretary proposed an "information"
bill where various government agencies would have access to
centralised government records...this was part of some
"anti-terrorism" idea...

On the surface it sounded like an interesting idea, until you
discovered that it permitted someone from the "food and fisheries
ministry" access to all your information, supposedly to "prevent
terrorism"...so, a food inspector needs full access to the records of
every single person in Britain...and this helps defeat Bin Laden?
Yeah, right...makes perfect sense...

Luckily, the son of the David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, happens to
work in IT...presumably over dinner, he discussed the ramifications of
the policy with his father...

Now, David Blunkett is known for being uncompromising, harsh, tough
and all that sort of thing...there is no such thing as a Blunkett
"apology"...he never backs down and is a "tough Northerner" (which
translates as "Tough Texan" over here ;)...the next day after his son
talked to him, he _apologised_, admitted that the policy was slightly
absurd and immediately repealed it...

Obviously, some stupid civil servants - impressed with the new version
of Windows ("Wow!") - had got all these typical "techno-fix" ideas of
"let's put everything in one big single point of failure database and
let everyone dip into it" without knowing their arse from their elbow
when it came to security, Civil Liberty, safety, etc. issues...you
know, the "let's computerise our system!" people...ask them why and
it's, like, "umm, computers are, like, cool and stuff, aren't they?
Like, if we have computers then it'll be like that Matrix film and I
like Keanu Reeves!"..."ummm, how does 'being cool' benefit your
company's profit margins?"..."Don't know...but, like, computers are
clever and stuff so it's, like, bound to make us instant billionaires
or something, right? You know, like, laser beams will come out and
transfer billions from some bank somewhere with some hacker thingy...I
saw it on the films!!" ;)...and they "convinced" the
computer-illiterate Home Secretary to sign some documents without
looking about it...you know, they slipped in, in between their
"expense account" stuff because they know he just signs them all
without looking at them (this also might be a little easier than most
to "pull the wool over his eyes" when it comes to Blunkett...he's
blind, you see...and has to have things read out or translated into
Braille...not in itself a problem _unless_ someone wants to
particularly dupe him specifically :)...

But once Mr.Blunkett had his son - who, of course, he trusts
completely that he knows that what he says is reliable (anyone else
and he might have doubted...but his own son? Those civil servants
trying to dupe Blunkett don't stand a chance against a man's own son
;) - explain what it really was all about, he - and this is historic
and uncharacteristic coming from Blunkett - _apologised_, _admitted it
was a mistake_ and took it all back...

This isn't made-up...this all actually happened...

The truth is, there is but a _SOLE_ advantage to this whole "big,
centralised database" nonsense...it's cheap...just buy one big
computer rather than hundreds all "integrated" and so forth...so, you
save money...that's the "big advantage"...the disadvantages are
numerous and some of them potentially catastrophic...

Note, when they have "one big computer" in all those sci-fi films,
it's for "audience comprehension" reasons only...it's not a
particularly clever idea in reality..."dumb", if I'm honest...for a
sci-fi film, it's like easy to understand when the "system" is like
this big black box called "HAL"...there it is...a box...and it's like
one thing...and it's got, like, a name and everything...so, pretty
much, it's like a person, right? Well, even the dumb bloke right at
the back of the cinema's going to get that idea..."big box = clever
computer"...

To be fair to Arthur C. Clarke, HAL is actually a whole lot more than
just the box and is spread out across the ship and the "HAL"
personality is just the "convenient interface" for the humans...

And the computer in Star Trek is similarly not really located in one
place...and though, again for "audience comprehension" reasons, we
never hear the computer talking to different people on the ship _at
the same time_ (well, _people_ can't do that...it would confuse
"Mr.Dumb" in Illnois, if that sort of thing happened on screen, as
he's used to people who talk to people one at a time, not these "new
fangled computer things"...so, it's 100% serialised when you watch the
TV show :)...but, clearly, it's quite possible that Picard is talking
to the computer in the "Turbolift" (Odd that it's "lift" rather than
"elevator" on an American TV show, by the way...wonder why? Shorter,
perhaps? :)...and, on the bridge, Data is talking to the computer
about something else...and Geordie's working with the computer on
something else...while, in the quarters, Will Riker is listening to
the computer tell him what temperature and light level his room is at
currently...plus, what happens if one person asks the computer
something at one end of engineering while someone else asks a
different question on the other side of engineering (well, it's quite
a big room, full of people doing all different work who could all need
to talk to the computer for different things :)? Presumably, the
computer can "isolate" its voice to be "directional" to specific
people so that it can talk to different people without confusion...

[ Yes, despite the Star Trek "nit-pickers", it again wins the "most
realistic" award, where others fall short...because, though, we never
get to hear the computer do this (as I say, "audience comprehension"
reasons...note that no-one ever interrupts anyone else or talks over
someone else or chatters in the background on _any_ TV show or movie
unless it's something important to the plot itself that they do...all
very delibrate...which I like to sum up as "audience comprehension"
reasons...if people were talking over each other and interrupting each
other and pausing while they think of what next to say...and,
basically, _actually act like people really do in reality_, it would
give people headaches to follow what was going on...hence, they
delibrately "simplify" things in front of the camera...remember when I
was telling Randy about not waving his hands because he forces the
cameraman to move the camera and having hands suddenly appear in
someone else's close up? Well, all of that is more "audience
comprehension" reasoning for you...actors actually DON'T really try to
be "realistic"...they try to be "pseudo-realistic"...if you go watch a
stage play then the actors will exaggerate everything...they'll shout,
even when they are supposed to be whispering...they'll cry with "their
whole body" and wave their hands about when angry...the reason?
Simple, the guys and gals at the back of the theatre need them to
shout and make their actions _obvious_ so they can see what's going on
from the back of the theatre...thus, in fact, actors work on "simplify
and amplify"...you have a "sad face" which can be seen to be a sad
face from a mile away...real sad faces in reality, though, are subtle,
complex, varied and so forth...nope, too complicated..."simplify and
amplify"...the actor doesn't move a single muscle _unless_ it is
conveying something...the first lesson of being an actor: switch
yourself off...completely...when "third cop" is supposed to smile, it
shouldn't be the actor smiling, it should be "third cop" doing
it...switch yourself off...then consciously control "third cop"...not
as easy as all those actors out there make it look...and when we see
bad actors, then you can see exactly what I mean...with acting, if you
stink at it, then you _really_ are _awful_...a bit like singing,
really...if you can't do it right, then, please, don't even
try...hehehe ;) ]

> 4. The system has one part for nationwide matters, and one part for
local
> matters (or many). Since diffrent officials have diffrent access to
the
> system they also have diffrent power to influence it. A party leader
may be
> allowed to enter suggestions to be voted upon into the system. Say
that the
> party leader of FRP (in norway) posted a suggestion that he wanted
all black
> people to wear green underwear.
>
> The suggestion would go into a voting period in the national part of
the
> system for a period of time, maybe 3 months. You could vote either
for or
> against. But the proposition must have a minimum of support to reach
> critical mass. Maybe >50 or >60 %. (This is also votable, but
defaults to
> current status the day it goes online) Lets pretend that 60% of all
people
> in Norway (very unlikly) voted YEs, we want all black people to wear
green
> underwear.
>
> After the initial voting period, if YES the case is sent to the
ministers
> (and/or newspapers or other knowledgable people). They think about
the
> EFFECTS on the system if all black men should wear only green
underwear.

Oh, I'm slightly impressed here...you've managed to wangle in a
"second house" and, therefore, a weird sort of bicameral
system..."checks and balances"...which, by the way, is a very serious
issue here that I Hope you're thinking about properly...there should
be "checks and balances" in place...for instance, is there any way or
position that has access to allow them to change everything?

For example, when Hitler got voted into power in Germany, he invented
a position called "Fuehrer", appointed himself to it, removed
democracy and then the rest is history...trying to do something
similar with a bicameral system like that in America is a lot, lot
more difficult...the idea is quite simple...no one body has all the
powers...so, the President nominates Supreme Court judges, the Supreme
Court rules on Constitutional matters and inter-state disputes, the
President needs the support of Congress, Congress itself is split into
two parts that get voted in via different methods, etc., etc....the
basic idea is to get any serious changes, you need to get the
agreement and permission of more than one body...it's not completely
fool-proof, of course, as it could eventually be possible to work
Nazis into every position...but it's not easy and would take time (the
Supreme Court judges being a particularly difficult one to
"rig"...though, they still do, mind you...Republican judges standing
down when, coincidentally, a Republican President who can nominate new
Republican judges to take their place...in fact, with that system, it
might even go too far that once it's "rigged", it's hard to
undo...because these people aren't actually democratically elected and
can remain there for a real long time)...

It would be wise to try to work in a bicameral system of some
kind...that is, as it's often called, you should be sure to have
"checks and balances" in place...oh, and to that guy who thinks I
"glorify America", I should just point out that _Britain_ came up with
the bicameral system and America simply thought it was a good idea to
"borrow" that one, as opposed to the "Napoleanic" systems (like the
one in Germany where Hitler dismantled democracy, in an ironically
democratic way)...

> What will it cost ? The Finance department etc finds the cost and
other
> effects of the suggested proposal and now the case goes back into
the
> system. Most of the effects of this proposal is now known, and the
people
> must vote again. They now know the cost, they are made aware that
from now
> on, no black man will be able to wear a red pyjamas again. Again
they vote.
> Lets still pretend that the people are in full (64%) agreement and
says YES
> again. Now the money to produse the green underwear is made
available from
> each people who voted YES. The sum is devided on the 64% of people
and the
> divided sum of money is removed from the person account of paid
taxes. In
> the process all thoose whoes account has no money left (have voted
to much/
> is a cheater/hasnt paide tax) is removed from the YES side. If
enough people
> are still left to pay for the proposal, the green underwear, its a
go.

Well, you've certainly put some thought into this system...I feel
almost guilty pointing out the sticky points :)

> The money is available and sent to the winner company, the company
that won
> the job (earlier in the process) to produse the underwear. Okey
better I
> used a Bridge, or a tunnel or something for the example.
>
> In the public online system, everyone can watch the money flow from
the
> people who voted yes (annonymous) to the money left the bank into
the
> pockets of the manufacturer.

Okay, one problem...along comes "good idea #1", everyone thinks "yes,
totally, let's give all seniors free health care!" (90% YES)...along
comes "good idea #2", everyone thinks "yes, totally, let's give free
milk to all the school kids" (95% YES)...along comes "good idea #3",
"yes, let's create shelters for homeless people and give them free
lunches and Christmas presents because, it's Christmas, and we want to
be nice" (72% YES)...

Seeing the problem yet? It'll soon become apparent...as they say
"YES", all those funds disappear from the "taxes" pool and into the
companies' accounts...great...along comes "good idea" #4, #5, #6,
#7...these are all great ideas...out goes the money to those
companies...

Along comes good idea #8...this one is the best idea yet: "let's all
have world peace and stuff"...yes, totally...99.999999% YES (well,
there's always one arsehole who wants to spoil the party in every
group, right? ;)...then, oh dear, "No more taxes available!!" appears
on the screen...all the taxes have been spent! "No, no!! This is the
best idea...it's better than some of those other ideas...I don't want
those other ideas anymore, I want this idea!!!"...

Or, going further, they keep voting over and over, then suddenly find
that they have NO income for the entire month...they, sort of, ummm,
spent it all voting for good things for everyone else...and, now,
ummm, they don't have any money for rent or food or anything...oops!
:(

So, how exactly do you prevent the problem of all the earlier good
ideas getting all the taxes and there's nothing left in the bottom of
the barrel for all the later ideas? You see, when politicians did it,
they would have "budget overviews" and "inter-departmental meetings"
and one bloke who's in charge of balancing the books between all the
equally important concerns...how do you emulate this in a "one
question at a time" system? Re-ask the same question later on to make
sure no-one's changed their mind? How often? How many times? Who's
going to be arsed to stay in all day long waiting for the same
question to come around again so that they can "reconfirm" their vote?
And if it was 84% the first time but only 7% the second time, then
what exactly does this mean? Do we consider that a "YES" or "NO"? Has
everyone just changed their mind or have all those who voted the first
time gone out shopping and still want it but aren't there to vote the
second time?

And, also, as I said before, if people are sitting in all day long
voting on things, when do they get time to eat, sleep, play, work, go
to the toilet and so forth? Because, for example, if all black people
must wear green underwear (and, by the way, this suggestion brings up
the question of who comes up with these questions...and what if this
question _did_ show up and a whole bunch of students and silly
people - on national "let's all have fun" comedy day - think it's
funny to vote "YES" and they get what they want? Oh dear!) then when
do they actually get time to get dressed for this to be particularly
relevent...or "minimum wage should be $50 an hour"? Cool...except
you're in all day voting on this that you've missed work to make sure
that you get your minimum wage raised...and, because of that, you've
lost your job...how do you ensure there's no "timing" problems? Like
people sneaking through "Neo-Nazis are allowed to kill people"
questions late at night - say, 3am - and then calling around all the
other Neo-Nazi people to all vote "YES" while everyone else is asleep
so it looks unanimously "YES" when, in fact, if everyone had been
awake when it was asked, then it would have been "NO" very firmly...

And if you insist on "60% of the population must vote" to prevent
this...then you've got a problem...democracy would come to a
stand-still when people are at work, sleeping, watching EastEnders on
the TV, etc....better yet, have you seen the "turn out" figures for
voting at the moment? They call elections and it's considered "very
good" when only a third of potential voters turn up...well, that means
33% and if 60% is the mark then _NOTHING_ will ever get passed unless
you can combat "voter apathy"...months go by and democracy is at a
stand-still because everyone's got "bored" of the novelty of
"democracy TV" and are back to "voter apathy" and worrying about their
jobs and kids, rather than "budget policy" or "international
relations" or "sending aid to Africa" or "AIDS education initiatives"
or whatever...all the stuff that people ignore at the moment because
they can't be bothered and don't find it particularly "relevent" to
them to make the effort to vote...

> 5. All voting for officials is done within the system.

"Officials"? What are they for? We don't need politicians anymore, the
computer does it all...just need some IT people to keep it
working...money is transferred automatically to the companies and the
companies themselves deal with the rest as per their contract...

I tell you what, though, this idea has one brilliant merit...post it
to your local politician...so that they can finally appreciate what it
feels like to be told "oh, you're not important, a robot or computer
can replace you"...then, watch how they'd never want to install a
single computer anywhere ever again ;)

Which, actually, is another serious "biggie"...this system - however
perfect - would never be sanctioned by our current politicians because
it makes them redundent, takes all the power out of their hands,
etc....so, expect that if you did send this to your local politician,
they'd search around, find my post and use all these arguments to
defend that they are "important" (politicians, you see...they don't
think for themselves...they'll just go on the internet, plagarise
something...call it "British Intelligence", start a war, kill
people...that sort of thing...it turns them on or something twisted
like that)...

> 6. All voting for/against laws is done in the system.

No, I disagree; So, when do I get the chance to vote against "all
voting for/against laws is done in the system"? And, ummm, would the
voting be in or outside the system? Because if it's inside, well,
that's not what people democratically want, as they are all going to
vote "NO" against point 6...

And it's hardly "true democracy" if you and only you are deciding
these really important rules of the system...so, the first votes will
have to be on how the votes should work...except that those votes
don't work in the way people want the votes to work in...

It's catch-22!! How can you break out of this, though, without at
least _one_ thing being "undemocratic", having you _force_ people to
vote inside the system like a dictator...and, thereafter, this choice
is unchangeable forever more without invoking the paradox again? :)

> The system will be fast. Money for a proposal is allways available,
or the
> money is never spent. New laws and proposals take effect sooner.
People will
> see their effect much faster, and get wise more quickly. There would
still
> be room for lobbying, and newspapers to set focus on important
issues.

So, basically, all peodophiles will be dismembered slowly on live TV?
Oh, and no-one's particularly interested in "fair trials" because
that's "boring" and will just "let off the scum!"...and, like, News of
the World has already told them that these people are guilty and we,
like, believe everything in the newspaper...

Because that newspaper decided to take the law into its own hands and
printed pictures of child sex offenders...understandably, everyone was
freaked out (of course, there's been child sex offenders,
unfortuantely, since time immemorial...didn't give a crap about it
until some pictures were printed, then it's the most important thing
in the universe)...lynch mobs formed and pestered this guy over and
over...painting slogans on his house...smashing his windows...he
couldn't take it anymore and committed suicide to get away from it
all...

He wasn't one of the people in the pictures, by the way...just looked
a bit like one of them...of course, a "fair trial" would have given
him the chance to prove his identity, would have verified whether he
was with official records rather than some small photos on the front
of the newspaper and so on and so forth...he's dead...he was also
completely innocent...

The News of the World had one of its biggest circulation figures that
week...they made tons of cash by just delibrately getting people
upset...

And, every week, the Sunday Sport - in between sex adverts and topless
models - has a very, very worrying concentration on rape stories
specifically...that include explicit details of how the crime
happened...what underwear they were wearing...and so forth...

You want to put the only voice "educating" the people in their hands?
The above makes money, I'm afraid to say...so they'll keep on doing
it...as if they had a "conscience", then the things would never be in
print in the first place...Rupert Murdoch already has a monopoly on
people's opinions as is, I shudder for this to be effectively made
"law"...

> People will have more influence directly on dessisions. Only people
> intressted will vote for a case since there is otherwise to many
cases to
> consider. Just as today. People will have to pay taxes to
participate in
> voting. You can vote twice if you have the money. If you really want
a 100
> million silver dollar penis in front of the White house, just pay
for it. If
> people go against it will cost ya. People will not have to pay for a
public
> solution they never agree with, but must bow for the majoritys will.
People
> who pay more tax, have higher influence. Theres is no way of getting
money
> out of thes system via illegal transactions. People can vote for
ministers
> to walk. People can vote for local issues, consering their nearest
> soroundings. The system can be dealt with in the same manner on
anylevel.
> Even on the level of a family. The system is built out of people
units. They
> can group in anyway they like. In a house, in a small town, in a
city, in a
> baskettball team, in a nation, in a world. Everyone *can*
participate, but
> do not have to. All official activity can be traced and logged for
everyone
> to see. With the exception of national affairs consering security,
but this
> to should be open to debate, the degree. Citizens can also give
proposals,
> but not as many as a party leader. The group can have its own rules.
We like
> to vote, we love it. If it can be done with the least of effort why
shouldnt
> it. If you are FOR democracy, how can you be against MORE democracy
?

Not at all; In the spirit of what you intend, it sounds just
great...it's the thorny "implementation issues"...the possibilities
for corruption, exploitation of the system and simple realities...it's
quite possible democracy will go in this direction (there's already
electronic voting machines...if you're American, then you'll be using
this election...and that's caused immense contraversy...for example,
the source code was "accidentally" left on an open server...so, a
cracker out there might already be making the CD which'll change your
vote...plus, it uses Windows 2K, apparently...democracy in the hands
of Microsoft...a pleasant concept, no? ;)...

> The argument that representative democracy is better is (not) true.

No, it's not better...it's just _practical_...maybe, indeed, computer
systems can help to make more things practical for more democracy...

But, well, I'm like that general guy in Terminator 3: "I'd like to
keep humans in the loop"...just before he hit the button to unleash
SkyNet on the world...

A major, major problem with computer systems is that they are way too
easy to corrupt and to completely cover your tracks that your
manipulations are untraceable...not that they are likely to reveal
their identities but it would be good to hear a professional system
cracker's opinion of having democracy running on a Windows XP
Server...

> Its
> impossible to have anything less. Most people would probably be less
likely
> to be more interessted in foreign policy than they are today. But
they might
> participate more actively on local matters consering their imidiate
> suroundings, just as they are today, or on BIG national issues, just
as they
> are today, but most of the time they would likely let politicians be
> politicians. But they could not then blame politicians for desideing
on
> issues that they had a direct chance of influencing.

But, then again, if you want greater participation in local affairs,
then is "centralisation" the best way?

Let me suggest something else: "Devolution"...in the UK, the
Westminster government controlled all the affairs of Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland and England...but, recently, the Labour government
finally granted Scotland its own Parliament, Wales and Northern
Ireland an "assembly" (though, Northern Ireland's assembly is an off
and on affair because of the troubles there...so, they say "the IRA
must give up weapons or the assembly goes"...and then they bring it
back, only for Republican and Unionist politicians to shout at each
other and threaten "we'll shut down the assembly again, unless you
give up weapons!")...the "assembly" not being a full proper Parliament
like Scotland or Westminster but making decisions on a more "local"
level...so, while the Westminster Parliament is doing stuff about
students paying "fees", the Scottish one has already decide NOT to do
this...the big "pot" of money is given to the more "local" governments
and then they concentrate on more "local" matters...while Westminster
remains the "big" parliament for the whole union (if you're wondering,
England has no "local" government like the others and still works from
Westminster...many are asking why there's this difference and calling
for an English "assembly" too (some talk too about splitting it into
"North England" and "South England"), so that Westminster is, like,
the UK's Parliament and then all the "regions" have their own
assemblies and parliaments and stuff...

Anyway, this is only "minor" devolution and it could be expanded
upon...and, like, there's a "local" government and "local"
politicians...so, for example, you could have the national "White
House" government...then, perhaps, "North" / "South" / "West" / "East"
American assemblies...then, inside those, there's an "assembly" for
each State...and then, there could be "assemblies" for "North
California" and "South California"...well, divide it up any which
way...and the idea is that the power is _forced down_ in the
system...if it's to do with a local road then the most "local"
assembly deals with it...if it's to do with the State, then the
"State" assembly deals with it...the only things for the national
government are national policies...

And, thus, you get more people involved in "local politics" by simply
making local politics relevent and accessible...the politicians all
being "local" too...literally the man or woman down the road from
you...the complete opposite, almost, of your "centralise it all into
one big database"...

This system can also potentially bring about more democracy and
policies coming into force faster and local people being able to get
more involved with local politics by going to the assembly building -
on your street, in fact - and talking to the local people - the man
next door - who are politicians there...and with all these local
assemblies, there's simply more politicians...now, that might sound
bad but, in a sense, more local issues can be dealt with and in more
detail...if every decision in all of America has to go by Bush then
it'll either take forever or, to speed things up, Bush doesn't really
look into the problem...blah-blah-blah...but, like, there's a problem
with the road outside your house...well, go see "assembly member" John
next door about it and then go to the assembly building - in the next
street - to sort out this "local" issue...all in the local hands,
being able to spend the time needed to concentrate on local issues
properly...

And no need for "HAL 2000" to take over the known universe as "Big
Brother" or any other Orwellian nightmare...why crack a nut with a
sledgehammer? Because, interestingly, after all your "centralise" and
"the entire nation votes and it all comes out of a national budget",
you talk about people not really being interested in world politics,
anyway, that they'd all be ignoring it...and that it's all about
"local" issues and more participation locally...true enough...but
wouldn't that be better solved by making it easier to get involved and
have a real voice on the local level, than shipping _everything_ to
some single computer in North Dakota where everything gets decided by
the entire nation? If "local" is the problem, then wouldn't it make
some sense that "local" is the solution too? Rather than shipping all
that out to a national level, which is actually a large part of the
"apathy" problem because everything gets shifted up to government, it
all becomes "world policy" and "national policy", which are the things
people are actually _least_ interested in than the funding for their
local school...

Beth :)

• Previous message: The Half A Wannabe: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• In reply to: The Half A Wannabe: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• Next in thread: quality computer systems: "Re: A Parable of Two Carpenters"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]