Response to @dwinblood : Representative government is great, just need better reps! #steemit - #anarchism

To follow the debate chain: me, him, me2, him2, this post.

So I'll guess we'll keep this chain alive until one of us forfeits or gets bored :)

Btw I prefer this format. Shorter answers on such a platform are more effective, I would think.

Won't be me.

Debate

 positive: What you need is another layer of representatives that serve as auditors, and get payed when they find flaws. [incentives orthogonal with that of representatives]

dwinblood:  That sounds familiar.   It seems we do that often, and it doesn't work  out too well.   In fact how is that different from what we have now, and  what has happened to that over time? 

It isn't. And it's pretty effective as it stands. Government regulation agencies (tax, betting etc...), at least in my experience, are pretty aggressive in executing their tasks, beyond the point of being thorough and nearing overkill. 

While this creates an unpleasant experience for the civilian - especially when they're wrongfully prosecuted - it does raise the price on corruption sufficiently that only well-connected agents will succeed in influencing audits. 

This can be made harder by constantly changing leadership of auditing bodies frequently enough, so that the influence of connections is time-restricted.

The inefficiency issue you addressed (or rather illustrated) is to do with a proliferation of unnecessary agencies. 

This can be solved by defining government into a clear, finite set of functions, and creating agencies that help administrate these functions. Not creating agencies based on moral whim to appease the masses during election season.

Perhaps there should also be private (but government funded) agencies that evaluates whether agencies are useful, and gets commission on the savings governments make by removing chaff-agencies.

positive: pooling money saves time, hence I don't mind paying taxes (not verbatim)

dwinblood: It seems like you are advocating for how things are CURRENTLY and what  we have today, yet I know that was not your intent.   

 I'd say we have  historical demonstration (many of them) where this can and likely would  lead.   Yet, the same cannot be said for Anarchism.   The dangers and  woes of anarchism as far as I know are speculation, and have not been  attempted.    The dangers from systems such as you propose have historical precedent to show what can, and often does happen. 

Not really. I can say with high degree of certainty that without regulation there is less of a disincentive t0 break into my house and stealing my TV, or worse brutally attacking me. 

Since if I don't retaliate, he'll get away with it.

Yet, even if I didn't retaliate under the previous system he wouldn't get away with it.

Now perhaps private insurance systems would be more efficient, and would create incentives Draconian enough to dissuade the thief, but then that's a matter of speculation. 

And I'd rather hedge what is a necessary risk of a system where certain behaviour is not necessarily discouraged.  

dwinblood: Who makes the rules in the technocratic society?  (someone has to program the initial machines and decide what is fair)

Who controls those that hack the rules in technocratic society?

Who is the new Diebold?

Well, I didn't necessarily conceive such a high degree of automation.

Just representatives that are quantitatively chosen based on the degree to which their interests are aligned with those of the pool of voters they're representing. And these representatives are chosen from a pool of  sufficiently educated/skilled to be considered for their position.

Representatives make the rules (I advocated a representative technocracy).

So, I suppose the electing algorithm could be hacked.

In which case there should be a budget for bounties throughout the year, and a budget to fund research on the voting system. Malicious users should be threatened with prosecution sufficiently Draconian that for most it wouldn't be worth taking that risk (of being caught).

 Furthermore, I don't believe ANY ideology has a chance of success  without addressing the problems in education.   For any education to  succeed I believe people need to be taught reason, logic, critical  thinking, etc so that they are better able to handle information, rather  than letting emotion lead them...  Addressing this issue is important for EITHER of our positions to work.     

I would actually disagree. 

I don't think that's necessary at all (though it'd be great).

 Some people have greater cognitive ability (I would think for non-natural reasons, but that's another debate) than others.

 Such that there's enough of them that the system can function effectively, and the marginal benefit of more educated people is low enough that cultivating critical thought in more people beyond that point is superfluous (in regards to effective governance, there are other benefits of course).

All that is needed for my system to work (as far as I understood) is quantitative interest-fitting for representatives, a small pool of sufficiently "intelligent" representatives. 

And well designed incentives whose results can be modeled.

 dwinblood: If it is too late then it is too late for either idea and WE might as well stick our head in the ground. :)

Nope, not too late, and I think soon to come, as the cognitive "elite" are increasingly empowered.

E.g. An intelligent person knowledgeable in comp sci can wield a lot more influence than say 100 years ago. 

I guess Steemit is a perfect example :)

You're right on the time argument and I'll avoid making it.

I look forward to your response!