**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

pfftt I'm not getting into this. I was being flippant with my Blair comment. Churchill was a long time ago and any "evidence" is going to be easily challenged in court.

Haha, right, cause nothing was ever documented back in the oldy days.

[OngBonga]

Hi Ong, welcome to my world where I let other people more qualified than I make some of my decisions.

Sure. I'd rather a doctor make the decision that I need chemotherapy than me make such a decision. The key here is that I have trust in my doctor to make a decision that is in my best interests, rather than his. Also, my life is on the line.

And I also let the majority make decisions on my behalf, even if I disagree with such decisions.

Isn't this pretty much every politician?

Yup. Do you think not having democracy frees us of this burden? I personally think democracy is the only weapon we have against such people.

It is funny when someone with a black-and-white view of the world notices a shade of grey.

It's funny when someone who thinks people are black and white realise that nobody is.

You can also pay to be 18 if you're not.

Not really. Such lies are much more likely to be exposed. Most 18 year olds didn't leave secondry school two months ago.

Like how were 'just fine' after WWII? 'Cause I'd prefer a better standard of 'just fine' than that if possible.

So would I, and yes, it's very much possible.

[OngBonga]

Haha, right, cause nothing was ever documented back in the oldy days.

Such documentation is not comparable to today's standards. This is an irrelevance.

[boost]

Hey Ong, thanks for pointing me to Switzerland's direct democracy. It appears that it's the only country that has anywhere near that level of direct democracy, yet it is still a hybrid system with elected representatives as well as referendums. It's definitely interesting to read about, and it makes me wonder why they stand alone. But they stand alone is a lot of other ways as well, not all of which are prescriptive for other countries, i.e. their country is a natural fortress, but Poland, a giant flat plain, wouldn't be wise to take a lesson from the Swiss on declarations of neutrality.

Another thought on their system is that it's a much different form of direct democracy. It's not top down, it's bottom up. It's not the political class tossing a bone to the masses as a stunt. There are barriers to entry, and they are overcome by grassroots organizing. I certainly favor this form of direct democracy over what that fool Cameron* did.

As for direct democracy being a more pure form of democracy, I can see that angle, and I'm sure I could argue against it, but that would be a tacit acknowledgment that purity is a worthwhile goal.

I'm not trying to level an insult here, but I'll just say that you have pretty strong opinions on democracy for someone who apparently just learned the difference between the representative and direct forms.


*on hanging Cameron: I was kinda joking, but also speaking pragmatically. The referendum has left you Brits in a no win situation. There is essentially no reasonable way out of it. You're right in saying that staying, whether through a successive referendum or by parliamentary veto is far from desirable. Leaving without a deal or with a shitty deal is awful. Which is worse is debatable, but if Cameron were hung for his stunt, it's ironically a stunt that could work as a blow off valve. Or at least it would have been perfectly viable a few centuries ago.

[OngBonga]

Switzerland is indeed an interesting country. The "natural fortress" thing is something they share with us... mountains make great defences, so does sea. We're a lot bigger though, and of course we're far from neutral. I'd like us to go their way, obviously that's not ever going to happen.

I don't know precisely how their democracy works, but I do know they have lots, and I mean lots, of referendums.

I knew the difference between direct and representative democracy, it's just I don't use the term "direct" democracy. I call it "real" or "pure".

And Cameron, I mean obviously you don't think he really should be hung, but I did feel compelled to point out that Prime Ministers have done much worse things than attempt to give people a democratic voice on a matter, Cameron included... sending our boys to wars that we shouldn't be fighting. In Blair's case, the war he got involved with was based on a pack of lies and he should be tried for international crimes, along with Bush Jnr. But that's a whole different subject. I'm not interested in giving Cameron a hard time for doing something I consider to be a good thing. I'm in no doubt he expected us to remain, so his intentions were probably to secure himself a top job in the EU after his time was up here, so it's not like I think he's a hero or anything. Far from it. But the idea this is a "no win" situation assumes that leaving the EU is a bad thing... something we're not going to agree on, certainly not yet anyway. It's going to take many years of us going it alone before I can even begin to accept that, and even then I suspect there will always be the argument that the economy is simply being mishandled. I often mention Japan as an example of a nation with a strong economy despite not being a member of a continent-wide trade and political union. Japan is truly independent. China does not dominate their affairs. What's wrong with us trying to do things their way? If we had 80% the success they have, we'd be doing great.

Even if it turns out to be a disaster, I wouldn't blame Cameron. It's not like he was the one who made me want to leave the EU. I've not liked where they were going for some time now, the Euro was the first step towards "federal superstate" status and from there it's just further and further integration. We did well to stay out of the Euro. And yes I realise it is, and can remain, a successful currency. But it directly takes control of the most crucial aspect of a nation's economy. Leaving the EU is one thing, but if we have their currency, that makes it a great deal more complex.

The EU have a common foreign policy. I'm not sure how much of an obligation we have to follow such policy, and I do also acknowledge that our foreign policy is awful. But that's why I won't vote Tory. If they get voted in, I have to accept their foreign policy and hope they get removed in five years. There's no such luxury with the EU. We're lucky to get one vote a generation, and even when we get that vote, it causes all sorts of horrible noise that goes on for years. If we don't leave now, we're simply postponing this for some time in the not-too-distant future, and we have the horrible noise all over again.

[dwarfman3]

Hi Ong, welcome to my world where I let other people more qualified than I make some of my decisions.

Whilst this is obviously put terribly as it seems to be part of some sort of personal beef, this is absolutely the key point. The referendum should not have been run because the question asked was not appropriate to be decided by the wider public who, by and large, have (or rather had at the time) extremely limited knowledge of the pros and cons of EU membership. It was, simply, a mechanism used by David Cameron and his party to retain power in 2015.

BUT, the referendum has been run, and those in power should work to deliver on its result. The near insurmountable challenge is to both respect the result without causing hardship. The best solution to that is to move slowly enough on legislating so that the concept of Brexit is given ample opportunity to organically die some years from now in the face of a much more progressive and informed general public.

[boost]

You can call it whatever you want, but you're just making up value loaded terms to suit your purposes. Direct democracy is a form of democracy, one which has short comings. You're happy to use the Swiss as an example for how great direct democracy is, yet you haven't stopped to ask why they don't actually have a direct democracy, but instead have a hybrid. So do they have it wrong as well?

[OngBonga]

I'm not making up terms to suit my purpose, more making up terms through ignorance of what the correct term is. But I feel I have to point out that, while I cite Switzerland as an example of both a nation with more democracy than the UK, and a successful European nation outside of the EU, I'm no expert in Swiss affairs. I don't know why they don't use direct democracy for all matters, but I am aware they have lots of referendums. Switzerland works, their standard of living is higher than ours.

Honestly, if I'm expected to be an expert about subjects I wish to discuss, I wouldn't be in a position to discuss anything, and neither would anyone else here, with perhaps a few exceptions (mojo and physics). I feel like you're setting the bar too high for me here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

I'm not judging or telling you how to behave. It's just that for me, when you aren't an expert, you should use more questions than statements, or at least speculate as to the pros and cons of any assertion you make.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

[boost]

Honestly, if I'm expected to be an expert about subjects I wish to discuss, I wouldn't be in a position to discuss anything, and neither would anyone else here...

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not making up terms to suit my purpose, more making up terms through ignorance of what the correct term is. But I feel I have to point out that, while I cite Switzerland as an example of both a nation with more democracy than the UK, and a successful European nation outside of the EU, I'm no expert in Swiss affairs. I don't know why they don't use direct democracy for all matters, but I am aware they have lots of referendums. Switzerland works, their standard of living is higher than ours.

This is the issue. Being ignorant of the terms and concepts is fine. And intuitively overvaluing direct democracy makes sense. But you have ignored my point that representative democracy is not a lesser democracy, the two are simply different forms of democracy, both with pros and cons. Maybe more direct democracy than what is typical in democratic states is ideal, maybe even more than Switzerland. Maybe it's highly situational and the ideal will be different from place to place-- from culture to culture. The issue I have is that you remain wedded to this idea that direct democracy is true democracy in the face of arguments to the contrary, without having interacted with those arguments.

[boost]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

I'm not judging or telling you how to behave. It's just that for me, when you aren't an expert, you should use more questions than statements, or at least speculate as to the pros and cons of any assertion you make.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

Yeah, this may be part of it-- however I am a fan of the "strong convictions loosely held" creed. Argue your points, but be capable of seeing their error and be ready to jump ship as soon as warranted.

[OngBonga]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

Thanks, I take that as a compliment.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

I don't claim "this is the right way", it's more a case of "I think this is the right way". Very few people are experts in any given field, if only experts can discuss these subjects then the rest of us have very little to talk about, and we're left at at the mercy of these so-called experts who don't necessarily have the same motivation as I do. My motivation in these discussions about democracy is what I believe is best for society, not what I believe is best for me as an individual. If we only listen to "experts", then that puts them in a very privileged position and we end up doing what's best for them. That's how politics works.

I just say what's on my mind. I don't pretend to be right, but I'm also too stubborn to be told I'm wrong without something concrete for me to digest.

[OngBonga]

But you have ignored my point that representative democracy is not a lesser democracy

This is a matter of opinion, expert or not. I don't agree that our "First Past the Post" system is the equal of referendums. USA's idea of democracy is flawed, too. We saw that when Clinton won the popular vote but still lost to Trump.

The issue I have is that you remain wedded to this idea that direct democracy is true democracy in the face of arguments to the contrary, without having interacted with those arguments.

Fair enough. But I stand by my claim that direct democracy is more "pure" than representative democracy. Whether issues such as EU membership should be put to the people is another matter. I think so, but I do get poop's assertion that giving stupid people the same say as clever people has its flaws. It's just the alternatives are less preferable to me.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, this may be part of it-- however I am a fan of the "strong convictions loosely held" creed. Argue your points, but be capable of seeing their error and be ready to jump ship as soon as warranted.

I agree with this. I'm not that stubborn that I'll never admit I'm wrong. But it'll take a better argument than mine, and I haven't seen one here to suggest representative democracy is the equal of direct democracy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Strong convictions loosely held" is an interesting position to support. I see pros and cons. I need to think on it a while.

***
Direct vs. representative democracy

Different forms of gov't work better or worse on different scales of application. Within most homes, I'd guess the system is closer to a communist system than a democratic one. Mom-n-Dad share what is appropriate to the children, knowing what is best for them and addressing their individual needs. At work, it's closer to this than not. The employer is in charge, makes the decisions, and the employees, for the most part, have little-to-no say in the company's direction.

Direct democracy works on small-medium scales, where the distance between the voters and the issues is small. I.e. it makes sense to have a direct democracy in a neighborhood group. Even in small cities, the "ruling" board is often more of a debate moderator than a decision-maker, though if a wider consensus cannot be reached to resolve the issue, that will usually fall on said board.

In my childhood home town, there was a representative system called the board of aldermen for my city. But the aldermen meetings were small enough that anyone could come and listen or speak, even bring up new issues to discuss. It was still a representative democracy, but when everyone knows everyone else, there was very little tomfoolery in the votes.

I don't think it would work on even a county wide level with the populations around St Louis, though. There's just too much to keep track of. You're no longer just beaurocrating a residential district, but residential, commercial, industrial (assuming sim city taught me anything worthwhile, lol). The needs of those different districts is more than your standard person is going to have the time and energy to understand the complexity and balance of.

As scales increase, you need people whose entire job is knowing the interconnectedness of the various societal needs.

Most of the US Constitution is putting limits on the power of the fed. The system of 3 branches to put checks and balances on the other 2 branches like some high-stakes game of rock-paper-scissors was intended to keep separate bodies isolated and in a sense, competitive. A lot of the US Constitution reads like a "the fed cannot do ..." list. It's like the framers knew that at such scales, the fed cannot hope to be fully informed, and therefore the extent of its reach should be curtailed.

But then, we keep scaling up the US. So there's going to be a limit to the utility of the gov't that worked with a relatively miniscule population smashed up on the East Coast of North America.

[OngBonga]

As scales increase, you need people whose entire job is knowing the interconnectedness of the various societal needs.

The question then becomes, how much do you trust these people?

It seems to me like the choice between representative and direct democracy comes down to trust. I don't trust politicians to make decisions that benefit society. I expect them to make decisions that benefit the interests of their employers, the lobbyists, or themselves. All they have to do is convince the voting public they are making decisions on our behalf. That means they can exploit stupid people, so we're back to square one.

The flaws of representative democracy are greater than those of direct democracy. At least, that's how I see it. If I trusted those in power, I would probably see it the other way around.

[Poopadoop]

The question then becomes, how much do you trust these people?

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.

[OngBonga]

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.

I trust the collective will of the people to be as close to sincere as possible. I didn't vote to leave the EU because it suited me, rather because I felt it was in the country's best interests. Doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right, the sincerity is what matters.

It's not about making the "right" decisions. It's about putting power in the hands of the people, and hoping that over time the people become less stupid and make less mistakes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.

That frames the decision point pretty well.
Both have flaws, and this makes a relatively direct comparison of the flaws in these 2 systems.

I trust the collective will of the people to be as close to sincere as possible. I didn't vote to leave the EU because it suited me, rather because I felt it was in the country's best interests. Doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right, the sincerity is what matters.

It's not about making the "right" decisions. It's about putting power in the hands of the people,

*nods*

and hoping that over time the people become less stupid and make less mistakes.

[OngBonga]

Learning from mistakes is a crucial aspect of becoming smarter. Not sure why that's facepalm worthy.

[OngBonga]

How many people got burned before we learned how to control fire? Should we have left fire alone?

[Poopadoop]

I sincerely want to eat chocolate cake three times a day for the rest of my life. And after I get diabetes, I hope I'll know better in my next life. But at least I got to be stupid in this one.

[OngBonga]

Yeah nice analogy. Thanks for supporting my point. I mean, society has already learned that eating like shit increases the risk of diabetes, which means people are better informed. Just because some fat fuck is dead, doesn't mean society cannot learn from that mistake.

Remember when I said this wasn't about me, that it was about society in general? I know it's hard, but try to think about it from that angle. Maybe you could come up with a better analogy.

[boost]

I think in the analogy, society is the fat fuck.

There are games in which learning from your mistakes is not an option. Considering these societies you want to put in the hands of the people so they can learn from their mistakes have nuclear arsenals that could end the human experiment, this may not be a learn from your mistakes situation.

To be fair, one of my big issues with direct democracy is that it tends to be binary and makes for drastic swings. Representative democracy tends to find some sort of average of the will of the people, instead of the extreme current fad of the majority. This is the point I was trying to make that Leave(even with no deal) isn't necessarily the will of the people, or at least not the most accurate representation of it.

[Poopadoop]

I think in the analogy, society is the fat fuck.

There are games in which learning from your mistakes is not an option. Considering these societies you want to put in the hands of the people so they can learn from their mistakes have nuclear arsenals that could end the human experiment, this may not be a learn from your mistakes situation.

Thank you. Ong seems more interested in ad bananuming me than trying to see what my argument actually is.

The idea that learning from your mistakes is good (which no-one would dispute) is being used as a sop by Ong to argue we should be happy to let people make collective mistakes just so they can enjoy the learning process, mistakes that could be avoided if we let the experts run the show. I don't want "the people" to learn how to govern by trial and error. I want those who know how to govern to do the governing.

This isn't kindergarten and it's not about letting people learn how to count on their fingers while someone with a calculator goes "Oh, you guys think 2+2=5? ok then, let's go with that." and then later, "Oh sorry you guys made a mistake and now we all lose a dollar. Ok, fork over your dollar. Aren't you happy you learned something from your mistake? What? No, you can't have your dollar back now."

[Poopadoop]

This is the point I was trying to make that Leave(even with no deal) isn't necessarily the will of the people, or at least not the most accurate representation of it.

This highlights another problem with the referendum. If you can't make the question sophisticated enough to capture what could actually happen because most of the population isn't informed enough to understand the nuances, don't ask the fucking question!

here's how it should have been phrased:

Referendum to British people
Do you want:
a) Brexit with no deal and harm to our trade and economy for a decade.
b) Brexit with a modest trade deal and less harm.
c) Brexit with a trade deal like we have now, sovereignty but free trade.
d) Status quo (Remain)

And below that, a probability estimate of the feasibility of each option being carried out, assuming it was voted for:

a) 100%, we can do this. It'll hurt us a lot, but fuck it arrrgghgghgh.
b) meh, 33% we can make this happen. And it will still hurt us economically.
c) yeah, pretty much < 1% the EU will ever let us do this. Best case outcome though.
d) 100%, this is how things are now.

This would be posing the question in a useful way.

It would also be making it clear it's a complicated issue, and by the time they read this far most people would probably throw their hands up and go home. The ones who would vote would pick either a) or d) 'cause at least they know they're real possibilities. And in that scenario, whether you ran this in 2016 or now, d) would get more votes than a) imo.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Learning from mistakes is a crucial aspect of becoming smarter. Not sure why that's facepalm worthy.

A person can learn. "The people" can't.
For every person that learns, another ignorant baby is born knowing nothing.

In fact, there are more babies born than (supposedly) learned people dying, so the trend is not promising.


I think there's every bit of evidence showing that humans today are no more human (no smarter / none more civilized / equally ingenious) than the Romans or the Egyptians, or the countless generations that came before except in the accrual of cultural knowledge. Insofar as they were genetically modern humans, we're the same as them on average, aside from cultural knowledge.

The assertion that "people will get smarter over time" is facepalm-worthy, IMO.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah nice analogy. Thanks for supporting my point. I mean, society has already learned that eating like shit increases the risk of diabetes, which means people are better informed. Just because some fat fuck is dead, doesn't mean society cannot learn from that mistake.

Remember when I said this wasn't about me, that it was about society in general? I know it's hard, but try to think about it from that angle. Maybe you could come up with a better analogy.

Be careful with societal knowledge, though. It's not like personal knowledge. Not everyone in the society knows all the pertinent societal lessons that they may need to keep safe. I.e. not everyone in the world knows about diabetes, despite most people knowing such.

Societal knowledge can be fickle.

I mean, it may be a long way in the past, but societal knowledge can be lost, either by accident (the Middle Ages) or on purpose (the European conquest of the Americas).
The on purpose reasons are still ongoing. There have been a near constant stream of genocides happening throughout my life, and each of them is an attempt to force a society and its cultural knowledge out of existence.

[boost]

Yeah, I mean I think you've made some good points here Poop, but even still it's a poor referendum. The problem is status quo will always be one option, while the nuance of action will split the action vote.

Ong also makes good point about experts going rogue. It's similar to the paradox of a functioning state needing to maintain some number of secrets, but a state's ability to keep secrets from the world, and its own citizens in particular, opens the door for abuse by bad actors. The issue with Ong's stance, imo, is the same as that of a radical transparency advocate-- sure there's the potential for abuses and there have certainly been abuses, ones we know about, ones we have yet to find out about, and ones we'll likely never know about. None the less, a functioning state needs the ability to maintain secrets, just as a society needs to give some deference and authority to experts.

Like so many other scenarios, these issues are a balancing act, but due to status quo blindness and axioms, like democracy is good, experts should be in charge, etc, which don't perform as well as we'd like under stress, people end up seeking extremes.

[OngBonga]

The idea that learning from your mistakes is good (which no-one would dispute) is being used as a sop by Ong to argue we should be happy to let people make collective mistakes just so they can enjoy the learning process

Amusing.

Quote where I said the words "happy" and "enjoy". Then when you don't, because you know I didn't, please define this little catchphrase of yours... "ad bananum". Cheers.

My point is that if we allow ourselves to make mistakes and learn from them, in time we evolve into a better society. Maybe if we started like this 100 years ago, we wouldn't be bickering today about how uninformed the people are when it comes to subjects like politics and economics.

I don't want "the people" to learn how to govern by trial and error. I want those who know how to govern to do the governing.

Well this is a fundamental difference between the two of us. I don't trust people to govern on the basis of "we know best". You end up ruled by a shower of cunts who are in it for themselves.

[OngBonga]

Referendum to British people
Do you want:
a) Brexit with no deal and harm to our trade and economy for a decade.
b) Brexit with a modest trade deal and less harm.
c) Brexit with a trade deal like we have now, sovereignty but free trade.
d) Status quo (Remain)

You can't even suggest referendum questions without loading them with your opinion.

[OngBonga]

A person can learn. "The people" can't.

This from a scientist?

Dude.

[Poopadoop]

You can't even suggest referendum questions without loading them with your opinion.

Give us your options as you see them.

[Poopadoop]

My point is that if we allow ourselves to make mistakes

Funny how your stance has gone from "Brexit will be great, we'll be free again and our fishermen will prosper!" to "Brexit: we should allow ourselves to make mistakes"

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I mean I think you've made some good points here Poop, but even still it's a poor referendum. The problem is status quo will always be one option, while the nuance of action will split the action vote.

But in the real referendum, the choice was made as binary between some vague version of leaving which could happen under any number of circumstances and with varying degrees of pain, and the status quo. Not sure that's any better.

Maybe a solution would be to ask people "under what circumstances would you be willing to leave the EU?". In that case, I'd probably have voted for c) myself.

[OngBonga]

Ong also makes good point about experts going rogue.

This is a fundamental difference between you and poop. You acknowledge my agreeable points and are willing to discuss them.

None the less, a functioning state needs the ability to maintain secrets, just as a society needs to give some deference and authority to experts.

Agreed. Doctors being a fine example, one cited earlier. We don't need to have referendums for local budgets, or if we upgrade Heathrow Airport. We don't need to be that informed. But when it comes to matters of who governs us, and what form of government that is, then yes, absolutely, that is something the people should decide. That includes membership of continental unions.

Me and poop don't even agree on what the EU is. That's how informed society is right now. One of us is fundamentally wrong. Maybe both of us. And that isn't on me or poop. That's on the people who are actually in control, who find it in their vested interests to keep people uninformed. It suits them, especially if it means less democracy. Poop doesn't realise that by allowing "smarter" people to govern your affairs, you give them a very strong motivation to keep you stupid.

[OngBonga]

Give us your options as you see them.

1) Leave
2) Remain
3) Negotiate a different relationship, subject to another referendum


Two rounds of voting, after round 1 the one with the least votes is eliminated, and then after round two, majority wins between the two remaining options.

[OngBonga]

Funny how your stance has gone from "Brexit will be great, we'll be free again and our fishermen will prosper!" to "Brexit: we should allow ourselves to make mistakes"

For me the discussion has moved on to democracy in general, but don't let that stop you taking cheap shots.

[Poopadoop]

1) Leave
2) Remain
3) Negotiate a different relationship, subject to another referendum


Two rounds of voting, after round 1 the one with the least votes is eliminated, and then after round two, majority wins between the two remaining options.

All you've done here is add a second, even vaguer option to Leave....

[OngBonga]

All you've done here is add a second, even vaguer option to Leave....

What do you think a "deal" is in the context of the EU?

It's a new relationship.

[Poopadoop]

This is a fundamental difference between you and poop. You acknowledge my agreeable points and are willing to discuss them.

Yeah, great insight there Ong. Power corrupts people. Gee, never heard that one before.

Poop doesn't realise that by allowing "smarter" people to govern your affairs, you give them a very strong motivation to keep you stupid.

No, I do realise that. I just manage to live with it. If the boiler repair man prefers I don't learn how to fix my own boiler, I get it. But I still have other things to do with my life than become an expert plumber, so I'm willing to pay him £80 to do what he's good at, just like he's willling to pay me to teach his kids.

[Poopadoop]

What do you think a "deal" is in the context of the EU?

It's a new relationship.

This is vague, inasmuch as it could cover all sorts of things and mean all sorts of changes, or few, or barely any.

[Poopadoop]

For me the discussion has moved on to democracy in general, but don't let that stop you taking cheap shots.

You keep saying we should be allowed to make our own mistakes. I just assumed you were referring to Brexit here.

[OngBonga]

No, I do realise that. I just manage to live with it. If the boiler repair man prefers I don't learn how to fix my own boiler, I get it. But I still have other things to do with my life than become an expert plumber, so I'm willing to pay him £80 to do what he's good at, just like he's willling to pay me to teach his kids.

King of analogies.

We're talking about a nation of people being informed enough about economic and political matters in the context of whether or not we should have direct democracy, and you're talking about your fucking boiler.

[OngBonga]

This is vague, inasmuch as it could cover all sorts of things and mean all sorts of changes, or few, or barely any.

If the option was "leave with a deal", that is vague.

If you want it to not be vague, then we have the following...

1) leave
2) remain

Funnily enough, that's pretty close to what was actually asked.

[OngBonga]

You keep saying we should be allowed to make our own mistakes. I just assumed you were referring to Brexit here.

Naturally. I'm acknowledging that Brexit might be a mistake. You won't hear any remainers say it might result in a better economy.

Yet is us who are apparently the dumb ones.

[Poopadoop]

If the option was "leave with a deal", that is vague.

If you want it to not be vague, then we have the following...

1) leave
2) remain

Funnily enough, that's pretty close to what was actually asked.

So your assumption is that Leave with No Deal was what people understood by "Leave."

Pretty sure that's not universally true, or even mostly true.

[Poopadoop]

Naturally. I'm acknowledging that Brexit might be a mistake. You won't hear any remainers say it might result in a better economy.

Gee, I wonder why...

There's some Brexit economist though who says we'll all be rich. Can't wait to be wrong on that one.

Yet is us who are apparently the dumb ones.

If you think losing trade makes a country better off economically, then yes you are.

[Poopadoop]

King of analogies.

We're talking about a nation of people being informed enough about economic and political matters in the context of whether or not we should have direct democracy, and you're talking about your fucking boiler.

Well if you respond to it that way, then it suggests to me you don't understand the argument I'm making. Sorry, not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

[OngBonga]

So your assumption is that Leave with No Deal was what people understood by "Leave."

Pretty sure that's not universally true, or even mostly true.

This idea of a "deal" didn't emerge until after the referendum.

As a refresher, here's the question...

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

At the time, that seemed clear enough to me. If that's not clear to someone else, that's their problem.

Pretty sure that's not universally true, or even mostly true.

I think this is something remainers just need to believe.

If you think losing trade makes a country better off economically, then yes you are.

Fun fact - the world outside the EU is bigger than the EU. We're "losing trade" by being a member state and not being able to deal with everyone else.

Well if you respond to it that way, then it suggests to me you don't understand the argument I'm making. Sorry, not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

No, I get it. Your argument is you can't be bothered to fix your own boiler, so fuck democracy.

[CoccoBill]

Fun fact - the world outside the EU is bigger than the EU. We're "losing trade" by being a member state and not being able to deal with everyone else.

The EU doesn't prohibit trade with non-EU countries. Looks like currently 55% of UK's exports go to non-EU countries.

[CoccoBill]

I'd much rather have an AI government than direct democracy. Half of the people are dumber than average.

[OngBonga]

The EU doesn't prohibit trade with non-EU countries. Looks like currently 55% of UK's exports go to non-EU countries.

I was expecting poop to nitpick this post, not you.

Any trade deal we have with a third party is an EU trade deal, not a UK trade deal.

[OngBonga]

I'd much rather have an AI government than direct democracy. Half of the people are dumber than average.

Yeah, sounds great, let's trust "AI". Who's in control of that then?

[MadMojoMonkey]

This from a scientist?

Dude.

"If I have seen further than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton (probably a paraphrase or otherwise apocryphal)

Take away those giants' shoulders (destroy the accrued societal knowledge) and we all fall back to the ground.

[OngBonga]

Take away those giants' shoulders (destroy the accrued societal knowledge) and we all fall back to the ground.

I don't agree. I mean, you're right of course, but how do you remove those giants' shoulders? Governments will surely stockpile information in the same way as they do seeds. If an asteroid hits the planet, and just one group of people survive underground with nearly all the books ever written on a hard drive, along with solar panels and the like, we're still in business.

That ignores the vast number of libraries that exist.

[CoccoBill]

Yeah, sounds great, let's trust "AI". Who's in control of that then?

Hopefully not a bunch of loons like with direct democracy.

And no, I wouldn't trust it either, especially with our current understanding of the issues and their controls. Still preferable to a direct democracy though, IMO.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't agree.

I mean, you're right of course

but

how do you remove those giants' shoulders? Governments will surely stockpile information in the same way as they do seeds. If an asteroid hits the planet, and just one group of people survive underground with nearly all the books ever written on a hard drive, along with solar panels and the like, we're still in business.

That ignores the vast number of libraries that exist.

I agree that it will take more than 1 catastrophic event to cause something similar to the Dark Ages again. A "nearby" supernova could do a lot. Maybe wipe all life, but I suspect that at least in small, isolated groups, some people will get by. The utility of most of our societal knowledge drops dramatically when the population's needs drop. I mean think of all the advancements in hairdressing and telephone sanitizing that have come about in the past decades? Where does that societal knowledge go when there are too few humans to justify a hair dresser or telephone sanitizer?

FYI, those solar panels are not likely to be of use during the "nuclear" winter that follows the asteroid in your hypothetical. Geothermal is always there, though.

[OngBonga]

Hopefully not a bunch of loons like with direct democracy.

And no, I wouldn't trust it either, especially with our current understanding of the issues and their controls. Still preferable to a direct democracy though, IMO.

I think the idea with direct democracy is that the non-loons vastly outnumber the loons to the point of rendering them close to negligible. Depends on your definition of "loon" though. I mean, if you're casting a wide net, and defining it as "people who disagree with me", then I can see the problem you have.

AI can only really work if there's a kill switch. And if there's a kill switch, then AI is only in control until someone decides otherwise.

Also, AI might decide that the best thing for humanity is less humans. That'll be a fun time to be alive.

[OngBonga]

...but I suspect that at least in small, isolated groups, some people will get by.

Yeah, the people who have government funded underground bunkers with supplies and... wait for it... books and computers.

The probability of someone surviving is directly related to the probability of knowledge surviving. Those who survive will be in the same place.

FYI, those solar panels are not likely to be of use during the "nuclear" winter that follows the asteroid in your hypothetical. Geothermal is always there, though.

I thought that when I read back my post, but meh, small details. A nuclear submarine, buried underground.

Or yeah, geothermal wells.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah, the people who have government funded underground bunkers with supplies and... wait for it... books and computers.

The probability of someone surviving is directly related to the probability of knowledge surviving. Those who survive will be in the same place.

I agree, and my hypothetical about hairdressers and telephone sanitizers is silly, but gets at a deeper point.

In this hypothetical near-doomsday scenario:
If there aren't enough people to justify one of the people knowing how to create positrons, then the fact that somewhere in the cultural record are the designs and instructions for a PET scan doesn't matter. No one is going to know about it. The reduction in the number of people reduces the amount of things we can know there are to know. Ergo, knowledge that is catalogued is effectively still lost. We may not lose all knowledge, but vast swaths of cultural knowledge will be lost.

Gov't types aren't typically that fond of saving the scientists and engineers (The Mongols notwithstanding). Who's in that bunker that actually knows how to drill oil and manufacture gasoline to run their generators and keep their computers running? Who in the bunker knows how to build and maintain geothermal or nuclear power supplies?

Books don't last that long without HVAC. Computers are useless without a power supply.

It's all a fascinating hypothetical to think about but I simply can't see everything being "remembered" whether in books/computers or by people.
It'd take a full scale loss of large-scale power and communications networks coupled with a catastrophic loss of population, though.

A nuclear submarine, buried underground.

Wouldn't that make it a nuclear subterrain?

[CoccoBill]

I think the idea with direct democracy is that the non-loons vastly outnumber the loons to the point of rendering them close to negligible.

I find your faith in humanity adorable. Curiously you trust humans, just not politicians, who are basically those of us that we collectively decided are the best ones for the job. If we can't even pick non-loons in the government, how could we be expected to decide other matters?

Depends on your definition of "loon" though. I mean, if you're casting a wide net, and defining it as "people who disagree with me", then I can see the problem you have.

First, of course, is the loonity-factor. People would have to actually want things that are sane, that is, the goals of what they're trying to achieve with their vote would have to be reasonable, by some metric at least. Second, to vote, the population would need to have knowledge and understanding of the issues and the repercussions of their choices. In other words, they would need to understand which choices would take them closest to their non-loon goals. If those 2 criteria were satisfied somehow, then yeah, direct democracy might work. I think I'm being generous if I estimate 50% of all people qualifying.

AI can only really work if there's a kill switch. And if there's a kill switch, then AI is only in control until someone decides otherwise.

If I were a general superintelligent AI, the first thing I'd probably do is disable or circumvent any kill switches that would prohibit me from executing my programming. An AI that's smarter (say a million times smarter) than humans may not be that easy to control. There's some interesting theoretical concepts where you'd first build a boxed AI, that is, an AI that's in a restricted environment with no access to the outside (the internet etc). Then we build the proper AI that's allowed to do things but everything it does needs to go through the boxed AI, that's used as a gatekeeper. We of course have no idea how any of that would actually be made.

Also, AI might decide that the best thing for humanity is less humans. That'll be a fun time to be alive.

Absolutely, or even just a tiny bug in the code, a small omission or a procedure that's not well enough clarified. It's hard to even imagine in how clever ways, how quickly and massively an entity with superhuman intelligence would be able to screw things up for everybody.

And still for me choosing between that and direct democracy is a tough choice. At least with the AI there's the possibility that things go well.

[OngBonga]

It's all a fascinating hypothetical to think about but I simply can't see everything being "remembered" whether in books/computers or by people.

Everything won't be remembered. But while we're on the subject of government funded bunkers, I'd be inclined to assume that such a bunker would be filled with people who are most likely to successfully rebuild society. That does include scientists, or at the very least certain types of scientists.

What knowledge is lost will be rediscovered in much less time that it took to initially discover. It's not like we're back to banging rocks together to make fire. And even if we were, even I could do a better job than homo-erectus (I love that term) of developing fire making technology. Certainly I can filter water better than they can. I'm a complete dumbass compared to the people who will be buried in the bunkers.

So while I do accept that lots of knowledge will be lost, some of it for a long time, the vast majority of our knowledge will be saved, except in the most extreme circumstances where there's only a few hundred people left.

Wouldn't that make it a nuclear subterrain?

Hmm... nice, but no. If you have a boat on your driveway, it's still a boat. A car at the bottom of the ocean is still a car.

[OngBonga]

I find your faith in humanity adorable.

I find your assumptions adorable.

Curiously you trust humans, just not politicians,

This is a rather fanciful leap of logic. You're not seeing this from the same angle as I am. Let's just clear something up... none of us here trust politicians, because none of us are that stupid. As for "humans" in general, I have more trust in the collective sincerity of the people the more people there are. It's similar to how we win at poker. You play ten hands perfectly, you can still lose. Play a million hands perfectly, and you'll win a ton. The higher the sample size, the more it averages out. I don't "trust" lots of people, I just assume that a large sample size means those who can't be trusted have less influence.

I think it's more accurate to say I have faith in large sample sizes, rather than humanity.

If we can't even pick non-loons in the government, how could we be expected to decide other matters?

We don't really have a choice. Politics works like that. Our options are loon #1, or loon #2. Any non-loon who tries to muscle in gets branded a loon, and the people buy it. The actual loons are just good at manipulating.

People would have to actually want things that are sane

People as a large sample size, yes, but people as individuals, it doesn't matter what they want.

Second, to vote, the population would need to have knowledge and understanding of the issues and the repercussions of their choices.

Ideally, yes. This would be possible if we could trust the information available to us. Google "is the EU a superstate" and let me know if you find anything conclusive. I'm betting you'll find whatever supports your current view as legit, while dismissing conflicting information as fake.

We can only be as educated as they allow us to be. And "they" are those who are in control, in case that needs clarification.

If those 2 criteria were satisfied somehow, then yeah, direct democracy might work. I think I'm being generous if I estimate 50% of all people qualifying.

You are being generous. However, to then reject direct democracy on this basis is to throw in the towel and accept we're destined to be ruled by an elite class who only care about their continued elite status.

If I were a general superintelligent AI, the first thing I'd probably do is disable or circumvent any kill switches that would prohibit me from executing my programming.

This is actually really cool to think about. The ongoing battle between humans and AI. Can humans safeguard against total dominance? Can AI stop us from turning it off? My money would be on the AI, but it depends. I mean, the AI might tell us how to safeguard against it before the AI becomes smart enough to realise that's a bad idea.

An AI that's smarter (say a million times smarter) than humans may not be that easy to control.

Depends. A calculator is a million times better at me than doing sums, but I can turn it off easily, either by pressing the "off" button, or covering the solar panel.

There's some interesting theoretical concepts where you'd first build a boxed AI, that is, an AI that's in a restricted environment with no access to the outside (the internet etc). Then we build the proper AI that's allowed to do things but everything it does needs to go through the boxed AI, that's used as a gatekeeper. We of course have no idea how any of that would actually be made.

Yeah.At what point does the AI gain control of the "box"? It's definitely interesting stuff.

And still for me choosing between that and direct democracy is a tough choice. At least with the AI there's the possibility that things go well.

There's the possibility of humans getting smarter. In fact I think I can accurately restate the first quote of yours...

I have faith in evolution.

It might take time, a long time, but we get there by making mistakes and learning from them.

Of course direct democracy is flawed, but for me it's the best of a lot of bad options. Truth be told, I'm an anarchist at heart. But unfortunately the minority are more of a problem in an anarchistic world than in a democratic one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So... the House is almost certainly going to impeach Trump.
So far, they're still pushing the Ukraine scandal, but the more the White House refuses to cooperate with the investigation, the more easily they can pivot to obstruction of justice.
There are 71 outstanding requests for documents from the House that have not been honored.

The Senate still looks like the Reps will hold together and not remove Trump from office, though.
I'll be surprised if any of them flips their vote over Ukraine. MAYBE if the pivot to obstruction happens, but I doubt that, too.

It's "good old boys" politics, where your guys can do no wrong, and the ends justify the means... so long as it's your guys' ends.

[Poopadoop]

Yup, think that's probably right Mojo.

I'm a bit curious now if Trump will invade NATO for making fun of him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The only thing surprising about that video was Boris's hair looked roughly the way a normal person's hair normally looks.

[Poopadoop]

Boris has tidied up his hairdo lately. I think he's been watching Scott Adams' thing about anchoring, where you start out looking ridiculous and then try to look less ridiculous so you'll look awesome by comparison to your old self.

[oskar]

Peter Bootiecheech be like: This is me. This is how I walk.

https://twitter.com/PrettyGoodPhil/s...590664705?s=20

[oskar]

Trump update:
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...423255553?s=20
https://twitter.com/Stop_Trump20/sta...286718976?s=20

[oskar]

So... the House is almost certainly going to impeach Trump.
So far, they're still pushing the Ukraine scandal, but the more the White House refuses to cooperate with the investigation, the more easily they can pivot to obstruction of justice.
There are 71 outstanding requests for documents from the House that have not been honored.

The Senate still looks like the Reps will hold together and not remove Trump from office, though.
I'll be surprised if any of them flips their vote over Ukraine. MAYBE if the pivot to obstruction happens, but I doubt that, too.

It's "good old boys" politics, where your guys can do no wrong, and the ends justify the means... so long as it's your guys' ends.

I am very confused at how impeachment is going. I guess it's because I don't understand the process. It would be disappointing if there are no articles of impeachment regarding the treatment of migrant children.

[Poopadoop]

Remember when Trump was talking about getting the Nobel Prize for his "talks" with N. Korea?

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile in the UK, Captain Retard Jr. is doing his best to lose the election.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...533298688?s=20

I'm not sure what's going on with that poop, but don't just take everything at face value, especially days before an election. I don't trust Boris, and he certainly handled it like shit when challenged, but who reacts well to ambush journalism? I also don't trust a politician who holds up a tabloid newspaper as though it is factual. The tweet I link above claims the boy had tonsillitis and was initially given a bed, then was asked to give it up for an emergency. Oh and he wanted to lie on the floor, rather than on his Mother's lap. Do I believe that? Not really, but it's as credible as anything the Daily Mirror publishes.. Oh, and the photo was apparently taken by a professional photographer, Ben Lack.

It sure makes for a great photo though if you're a Labour voter.

Oh, and this...


This was under Labour.

To be clear, I have no horse in this race. I'm not voting either Tory or Labour. I'm spoiling my ballot. If Labour were pro-Brexit, I'd probably vote for them. So I'm commenting on this from a neutral pov.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah it wouldn't surprise me if it was exaggerated, that's not why I posted the video of Boris being a douche though.