On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:28:55 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m0nk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Mar 1, 6:40 pm, John Schilling <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:31:50 -0800 (PST), DJensen <i_m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >On Mar 1, 8:32 am, Matthias Warkus <War...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >wrote:
>> >> DJensen schrieb:
>> >> > But I really see no need for a fixed physical location,
particularly
>> >> > not one meant to represent the will of billions. So why not a
virtual
>> >> > or ad hoc capital?
>> >> I'd wager that a "virtual capital" would work about as well as the
>> >> paperless office or massive telecommuting, i.e. not at all.
>> >I'm not convinced of that, particularly if we were to get rid of
>> >representation and use a direct system of some sort. Don't look at
>> >real world systems being augmented by technology; look at how virtual
>> >systems are accessed in the real world. For example, YouTube. It seems
>> >to function without requiring people mail in their videos, or queue up
>> >at certain times of day to watch, and doesn't take weeks or months off
>> >at a time or close its doors at 4pm or for the weekend.
>> >Why couldn't a democracy, with constituents in every time zone,
>> >function more like that and less like your local bank or court house?
>> Because democracy is a form of government, and governments have to make
>> decisions. What sort of decisions does YouTube have to make, and how
>> (and how *well*) does it make them?
>> Not, mind you, "what sort of decisions does an individual YouTube user
>> have to make?". What happens when YouTube has to make *one* decision
>> that *all* users have to abide by?
>I'm aware YouTube isn't a government, and I wasn't proposing that
>government could be grafted to it. YouTube is, however, a highly-
>trafficked and fully participatory distribution model
Yes. A *distribution model*. Why do you imagine that a distribution
model is at all relevant? Government is not about distribution [1],
it is about decision-making. That's a different thing, so why not
cite as an example a highly-trafficked and fully participatory
decision-making model?
Or can't you find one worth mentioning?
>without the drawbacks and limitations of brick and mortar, because it's
>entirely virtual.
Right, which means it has all the drawbacks and limitations of virtual
reality, instead.
>Putting the decision-makers online wouldn't prevent decisions
>from being made.
That depends on whether the decisions absolutely have to be made. If
they don't, they probably won't be. If they do have to be made, they
will be made *badly*. Usually by a small subset of the assigned
decision-makers, probably composed of people who said fairly early
on in the process, "Hey, let's all get together next week and discuss
this face-to-face". The rest will either passively defer to that
group, or quietly form their own cliques and factions. The expertise
of the group will not be effectively used, and the decision will not
have the moral authority of a percieved consensus.
This is what actually does happen whenever people try to make serious
decisions in a virtual environment. It happens because humans are not
wired to make or accept decisions without face-to-face contact, and
because nobody has yet engineered a virtual decision-making process
that is compatible with the way actual human beings are wired. Heck,
they mostly haven't even created a virtual decision-making process
that is compatible with the way geeks and nerds are wired.
You can use the internet, etc, to collect and distribute the information
that will be used to make the decisions, which helps some. But at the
end of the day, you really do need to get all the decision-makers in
the same room.
[1] Several possible welfare-state jokes considered and rejected.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
