[liberationtech] Stability in truly "Democratic" decision systems

[Peter Lindener]

Mitar -

    You write: ""*I have not yet found a mathematical function which would
take two*
*human produced texts describing two proposed solutions to a problem*
*and produce a third text which would be a comprehensible and rational*
*merge of this two proposed solutions. Maybe your theory should start*
*from this?*""

   Your suggestion is interesting.... for that mater, our proposed solution
is to achieve exactly what you suggest..   You seem to somehow think that
it in some way is less that possible to build a collaborative information
process that would produce the third text that you mention...

   That is: build a "democratic" word processor that permits forking
versions of any proposed document...followed by a well formed preference
ranking process....  Continue to "Feed" an ecosystem of proposed competing
 alternative solutions.  Take care not to kill off "embryonic" proposals
before they mature enough to survive with respect to other well formed
proposed solutions...

   Before, dismissing all of what is being proposed here, Please consider
that the one way of making any real progress here IS by way of some level
of formality.

   -Peter


On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mitar <mmitar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Peter Lindener
> <lindener.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >    So I gather your taking the position that Social Choice theory has no
> > place in Social Decision Theory?  That is that the formality's of
> > information as well as Game theory are entirely inapplicable in the
> process
> > of achieving a better understanding of the truly democratic group
> decision
> > process...
>
> I have not yet found a mathematical function which would take two
> human produced texts describing two proposed solutions to a problem
> and produce a third text which would be a comprehensible and rational
> merge of this two proposed solutions. Maybe your theory should start
> from this?
>
> I agree that theoretical foundation is important. But don't forget
> what is the goal of democracy: that people can live together in a way
> which satisfies all of them the most. We are using voting as a method
> currently, because we might not know better (we are still using a two
> thousand year old method!).
>
> I agree with the interesting idea André pointed out. That we are
> voting and getting everybody involved in decisions because we don't
> know better. But the process of voting is not the end goal. It is not
> the question how can we optimize voting, but can we finally find
> something better? Which does not build on premises that everybody has
> to be involved, that everybody knows how to decide for everybody, that
> everybody has knowledge for that, and time to be involved. But which
> still makes sure that decisions we are making as a society are those
> people want and support. You can ask everyone of them (what is voting
> in a way), or you could be smarter and know what they want and support
> in some less invasive way?
>
> You know what is a good governance system? Not one where you ask all
> people for any small thing how they would decide. But one which
> produces solutions which all people when they see it say "Wow, this is
> a great solution, if just I could come up with it myself! I support
> it!" Because this is what you would like: that the solutions we decide
> for as a society are better than any individual him or herself could
> come up with by him or herself.
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130719/66f4ca30/attachment.html>