Hi Lata,
I enjoy these exchanges as they enhance my understanding of the
problems with the simple fact that politicians are the employees of the voters
Please look for *** in my responses.
Regards
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Lata Gouveia
[latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 14 Oct 2009 08:49 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Jim,
I wish it were so and... if it is, great!! Prove it.
*** I would reply with a question of how the DD systems of Switzerland,
California and others came into being? Any input?
The fact that people moan about government does not mean they would like to
replace it with themselves. *** I am not proposing
that the government would be replaced. Let them get on with their job. If the
decisions made by the government are not to the liking of the voters, the voters
must be able to change this. If I remember correctly, 97% of legislation passed
in Switzerland has no voter intervention
You say that they say yes to a vote that would put them in charge of
government, sure, but the question is misleading. *** The question is put after description of referendum
and initiative.
Most of them don't realize what it really means in terms of time and
commitment. They're just expressing a preference right there on the spot. *** There is not so much time and commitment required.
The system seems to work well in many places
You forget one major factor. Government is not fun... and neither is taking the
blame when things go wrong. *** Things are less
likely to go wrong when the decisions are examined by the voters
People feel responsible for their families and for their jobs, which takes up
most of their time. *** And get very fed up when
the decisions adversely their families, jobs and income
Some people still have a little time left over to feel responsible for some
catastrophic situation somewhere, so they set up a 5 dollar per month direct
debit to "do their bit". The rest of the time, they would like to not
be worried, not be feeling responsible, which might be fair. *** The threat of a referendum on any legislation will
automatically create decisions that would avoid a referendum. It has been demonstrated
in those countries that have DD that the people are willing to consider
alternatives and vote
I have to agree with Antonio that people require a gradual transition, they are
not prepared for DD. *** It will surprise them.
Again, the history of the successful DD operations?
If you set up DD tomorrow, the first thing people will do (no matter how you
phrase it) is this:"Let's find some
good people who actually know about government and stuff and lets make them our
representatives so we don't have to actually deal with the details. Just
someone we can fire when they don't do their job right". *** The current government can stay in place. Firing a
politician is recall.
Without a gradual approach, whithout education campaigns, without experimental
applications being applied first to smaller environments, without getting
people used to making group decisions first, this is exactly what will happen.
That's why I created Citizen Mundi. You might say a game means nothing but, if
it gets people into the habit of group decision making, it's a start. I am
shocked that I've had people playing for 9 weeks (I'm talking about people who
vote, participate, debate and propose) and still are just going through the
motions, still have no notion of consequence, responsibility or community
within the framework. Sure, it might be because the game is badly designed, but
the behaviour of players is still revealing. They have the power to re-design it.
It will take a long time until a sense of empowerment kicks in. *** Within my own community of Buccleuch, Sandton,
Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa, there is a problem. The local community
organisation has been set up so that the directors (3) have the final say on
decisions made. This I am busy changing
That's why I defend the opinion that DD will have to become POPULAR before it
becomes a system of government. If co-operatives started using it, fan clubs of
Pop celebreties, if instead of religious education kids had 1 class per week
that placed them in a group decision making environment, if trade unions
adopted some form of DD, then... slowly, you would see consumer groups, student
Unions, new small businesses and progressive not-so-small businesses adopting
some form of DD. Remember how the shareholding World came about? Same deal. *** I am busy with this in the Democratic Alliance
political party which is the official opposition to the government. I am
meeting opposition
Once people are used to DD on some other level of their life (family is not
it), the government system will look totally wrong to them. THEN, when people see
this en masse (not when we tell them), they'll be ready. But don't
discount or make fun of games and small efforts. They will be at the grassroots
level of any real Democratic reformation. ***
Agreed
Most intellectuals go straight in for the kill. Lets shadow the government!!
Here we go! Then they look around them and they are virtually alone, the rest
of the people are shopping somewhere. *** Education
is required.
We are at a point in Western Civilization where the masses cannot understand
anything that is not being SOLD to them. Have you noticed that? Unless the
transaction has already gone through (the marriage, the job inteview, the
insurance sales pitch, the electoral campaign, etc) our communication consists
of selling each other stuff, whether it's ideas, services, goods or emotions.
We can see through that here at WDDM because most of us remember it not being
so. For someone who was born in the 90's that is just part of human nature, an
essential building block of communication and probably (in their awareness) how
we've been for millions of years. I'm a musician, I deal with 20 year olds on
in social environments almost every day. Dangerous stuff. That's why they are
non-responsive to DD and many other things. You forgot the sales pitch, the
advertizing. What do they get out of it? No... not that, what do THEY get out
of it, individually? How is DD going to make them stand out from the crowd? How
is it going to make them more attractive to the opposite sex? How is it going
to bring their boyfriend back from Afganistan (getting warmer)? How is it going
to make going to University cheaper (warmer still)? Without a marketing
campaign you might as well be speaking Chinese. ***
We have a long way to go
Lata
From: Jim Powell <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, 14 October, 2009 14:31:53
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hi Antonio,
Virtually everyone I speak to has a moan about the government. When I ask
them if they would be willing to vote which will put them in charge of the
government, the answer is yes
The argument that the voters are not ready has been used over the ages
against non-landowners, women, illiterates, blacks, Indians, coloureds et
al. Now you put in place a spurious reason of mental attitude. The weighted
voting proposal is another block in the road.
All that is needed is for the Direct Democracy to be put in place and the
voters will sort out the rules
Regards
Jim Powell
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: 12 Oct 2009 12:30 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Jim,
You stated: "People changed when the system changed".
I question: Who is it (she, he, they) who changed the system?
My answer is: It is the Swiss people who changed the system.
Clearly, in order to be able to do so, for some unknown local
reason they had to be /different/, i.e., to some extent /changed, /
re the inhabitants of other countries.
Could you offer a better, more detailed answer? It could help.
Thanks in advance, best regards,
antonio
Jim Powell ha scritto:
>
> Antonio,
>
> Look to the great successful experiment that is Switzerland.
>
> People changed when the system changed.
>
> Give them the opportunity to be in control of the politicians and it
> will be taken with both hands
>
> 200 years ago the system was changed. We now have one of the most
> successful governments in the worlds.
>
> On a visit to Switzerland I interacted with many people. They all had
> moans about the government.
>
> I asked one question of the end of the conversation: What political
> system would you replace the Swiss system with?
>
> The replies varied from "none" to "are you crazy?"
>
> The assessment from this is that those who live under a political
> system that is not Direct Democracy must be somewhat crazy or more
> likely that there is a natural resistance to change from a system that
> seems to work in some way
>
> Regards
>
> Jim Powell
>
> *From:* Antonio Rossin
> *Sent:* 11 Oct 2009 08:02 AM
> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> *Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
>
> Joseph,
>
> I'm going to insert some comments to your reply.
>
>
>
> Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
>
> /Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business
> leader, //
> /any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility about
> Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will laugh in
> your /
> /face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why?
"Because people /
> /are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be incredibly naive /
> /to think otherwise"//
>
> Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people must
> change *_in advance_*. I laugh in the face of the contributors
> of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
> that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.
>
> So, when poll people in positions of power, they are of the opinion
> that representation is a necessity. Okay. If you ask a teacher about
> the necessity of teachers, I assume you would get similar results...
> for similar reasons. I do not think you are trying to use that as a
> supporting argument, but rather as in introduction into the theme that
> the people are not informed enough to govern themselves.
>
> Just so. Today's teaching - and most of all earliest teaching,
> i.e. parenting - are aimed to grow-up "Yes-Men" people.
> No wonder then, if these people will need of some one whom
> they say "Yes" to, and undergo. Therefore, teaching and
> parenting must be revised, if we wanted the new generation
> to become fit to perform DD.
>
> And, "Educate your child and you'll educate yourself," the
> old sage said.
>
>
> I'll buy that, as long as you have proof.
>
> Compare citizen and Congressionally passed legislation. Is the quality
> higher on the latter? Show me the examples. There is a VAST body of
> such evidence to inspect.
>
> Or is it that people do not WANT to govern themselves, as Antonio said,
>
> /Very simply, average people do not want to take any //
> /political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage /
> /to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic /
> /requirement of Democracy.//
>
> Point to the survey in an initiative/referendum state where the
> citizens want to revoke this privilege. Point to the survey of Swiss
> citizens who wish to give up the same.
>
> I have been looking in earnest for examples of where a citizenry
> explicitly gave up their right to have a direct say in their
> government. From what I have studied, this seems like a chimera. I
> continue to search, but without a clue, I don't think I can find it.
> Perhaps someone here can help.
>
>
> Why, "explicitly"?
>
> "Implicitly" is more than enough. I don't believe you'll even
> get the people to discuss this point explicitly, or else make it
> become an item of their Reps' political agenda.
>
>
>
> On what evidence do we base our claims that these two propositions are
> correct?
>
> The citizens are unable to govern themselves.
>
> The citizens do not wish to govern themselves.
>
> "The people are too stupid or lazy to govern themselves"
>
>
> The evidence is, Direct Democracy is down , there where
> Representative Democracy is up
>
> We know why this is a beneficial doctrine for a government to promote.
> We know we were inundated with this during our public education. We
> know that people other than ourselves will believe in the silliest
> notions... but we are inoculated, individually wiser than the masses
> we judge. We are better. We are vain. We are hubristic.
>
> We are those who Socrates and John Stuart Mill spoke of. We are never
> wrong, because the older we are, the more harm it causes to our pride
> to admit to a 10, 30, or 50 year mistake in judgement.
>
> There is no issue where clarity of discussion is more essential than
> in the responsible use of force. Government is force, legitimated by
> some base of overwhelming power. Democracy places that legitimacy in
> the hands of the people.
>
> The first specific question about government is the question of
> representation. For that reason, I (seemingly incessantly, right?)
> press this issue. Have we honestly evaluated a true direct democracy,
> or did we jump past it to the admittedly more interesting issue of
> solving the problems with representation? The whole WDDM movement
> could be viewed as a campaign to solve some of the issues with
> representation, but have we gotten ahead of where reason would
> logically direct us...
>
> Should the first question of a democracy not be a poll of the public
> to decide the question of representation?
>
>
> Wrong question (see above.)
> If you were able to obtain a *_really decisive_* poll to decide
> the question of representation, this would mean that DD
> is already up. Vice versa, if DD were down, as it is, you
> won't obtain such a poll even.
>
>
> And so on. I stop here, for the time being
>
> Regards, antonio
>
>
> A public tasked honestly with the formation of a government will have
> to answer this and other questions before the public or anyone can
> design a democratic government to serve them. That is a requirement of
> any system that claims to be a democracy. We skipped this in America.
> We consolidated power and then made other decisions by proxy, on a
> false foundation. This new power quickly validated ITSELF, voting that
> representation was a valid _expression_ of the public will. These
> decisions were the product of self interest, because they could not
> have been the result of a devotion to philosophy, a commitment to
> democracy, or the available evidence.
>
> In the beginning, do we really assume that the people would have given
> up their right to vote on war, which ravaged every country they
> labored to escape? Do we believe that they would trust this
> government, coming from lands led by leaders with little interest in
> the serfs they controlled? Would they have given up this right if
> asked directly?
>
> No. It was taken, as were all other democratic rights when
> representation was not validated explicitly by the governed. The
> omission of a referendum process at the creation of the union is proof
> positive that this government was not an _expression_ of the public
> will... even the white male landowning public will, which is a low bar
> for legitimacy indeed.
>
> 233 years later, we defend the decisions of the representatives of
> white, middle and upper class males. But why?
>
> We, the people, are afflicted with the tendency to stick to our
> positions once they are publicly stated. We are also susceptible to
> propaganda and conditioning. Combine with these tendencies a mass
> media and endless repetition, we begin to understand why the correct
> information sometimes takes a long time to surface. Geocentricism,
> witch hunts, alchemy, theories of gods on mountaintops throwing
> lightning and the luminiferous ether... not to mention modern
> macroeconomics and the healing power of magnets.
>
> Yes, there are benefits to representation, in theory and practice.
> This is a supportable position. By focusing on this side of the issue,
> it is easy to judge in favor of its existence.
>
> We do not sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of harm that
> representation causes, harm that can only partially be mitigated by
> selecting the correct people for the job. We must be the United People
> of America, apart from artificial institutions and princedoms. We must
> be held completely accountable for the decisions of our government,
> and we cannot, unless we are the same.
>
> Direct democracy is not perfect. "One man, one vote" is not a
> bulletproof concept, but it is the best of the available choices.
>
> I have been in favor of representation for over 20 years. I didn't
> change my mind until I actually started talking to people about their
> views of society. I spoke to hundreds of people, a few every day,
> venturing from my apartment in Seattle to simply discuss politics with
> different people at Seattle Centre.
>
> Very slowly, I realized that my comparative advantages in decision
> making were illusory. Perhaps I underestimated the masses because it
> fed my ego. Perhaps I had just seen SO many news reports and political
> commentaries that I began to see people through the their skewed
> lens... caricatures of reality. It is more than likely both reasons
> that supported my misconceptions.
>
> I would trust a vast majority of the people I have spoken with to vote
> on issues, which they express to me in very plain terms. Sometimes
> these terms are crude and sometimes they are different than mine, but
> that's okay.I may not agree with a person, but this is their country,
> too. We must decide together how to progress, and I would rather
> collaborate directly than through some convoluted and corruptible
> process. It is to everyone's benefit if this process is honest and
> transparent... simple and efficient. We sacrifice all four of these
> benefits to some degree with representation. We must be sure it is
> worth the sacrifice.
>
> When I talk to these same people about candidates, the conversation is
> sometimes about political ideas and understanding of the issues, but
> often it takes a back seat to other considerations. Many times, a
> desire for change is evident, but not a direction. Could it be that
> the actual changes we long for are impossible, so we settle for
> picking a team that will let us feel we have some control over a
> system that no one controls... a system out of control?
>
> In all, I find that these "stupid" people know far more about
the
> issues than they know about the candidates they are electing. It is a
> far easier task to research an issue than it is to correctly judge the
> character of a man who seeks power.
>
> If people are easily duped and lead, then the correct course is to
> limit the impact of their ignorance. If they are responsible, then a
> direct democracy poses little threat. Hitler was elected, after all,
> so ignorance of the masses does not necessarily imply that
> representation is superior... one could convincingly argue quite the
> opposite.
>
> Initiative/referendum states (and Switzerland) effectively give the
> public the ability to override or pass any law that the public
> chooses. Our analysis MUST include the quality and effects of these
> laws, as well as the admission that the "public is stupid"
argument
> would make this situation a disaster... in theory...
>
> How it actually plays out should dispel any fears, but we cling as
> barnacles to the rock of our individuality... the makeup of which must
> include our passionately held beliefs. If we correct our positions
> when we are wrong, we lose a part of ourselves, but it is a cancerous
> part. We should rejoice in its excise. Socrates sought wisdom for the
> joy of it. Philosophy. He said to be right, and to understand was a
> far greater treasure than winning an argument. What we gain is wisdom,
> understanding, and a proper humility.
>
> I cannot help but apply the most extreme scrutiny to the practice of
> representative rule making. When one supposes this may be correct, and
> analyzes the world through this lens, many new questions... fulfilling
> questions come to the surface.
>
> Communism, for example... if the peoples' soviet union had been
> directly controlled, how would it have evolved? Would the distribution
> have been more rational? Would they have evolved into a merit based
> system of quasi-market distribution with limits on profit margins for
> enterprises? We will never know, but this is FERTILE THINKIN' GROUND.
>
> A look at US History is another great intellectual pursuit. We read
> the inspiring words of the founders... we see the wisdom they
> displayed in the checks and balances system. Why did the creation of
> these people turn into what we have today? Representation plays a
> primary or secondary roll in almost every bad decision, war, and
> scandal in American history. This lens is clear as day.
>
> Consider any historic issue. Say... slavery. Was there popular support
> for slavery? Was it 50%? Did anyone ask? It really didn't matter, did
> it? No referendums... just politicians... making all the decisions.
>
> How about this. Extradition laws. Would the people of the north submit
> to the demand that they return southern slaves and pay taxes to
> support enforcement of fugitive slave laws? This was done for
> political interests, and was never supported by the people. What would
> have happened if any slave could simply gain their freedom by crossing
> a state line? In any state with slavery, it would be excessively
> expensive to employ slave labor, which could run a manageable distance
> to safety. This would be extremely pronounced in states close to
> Pennsylvania... freedom... so close.
>
> Oooh... Maryland. How would that have unfolded? The state is really
> thin, and it would be expensive to protect against their flight to
> Pennsylvania. Would the mass of white male landowners pay to support
> this enterprise, even though the majority owned no slaves in Maryland?
> Would a domino effect have killed the economic viability of slavery,
> because the masses would not consent to socialize the high costs of
> keeping a slave state? This was pro-plantation policy... not pro-white
> landowner. The two groups are not synonymous, and without the
> plantation dollars lobbying representatives, would slavery have
> evaporated?
>
> History is explained so well when we pin the blame on representation
> itself, as a core defect in our governing system. Every war and a vast
> majority of historical blunders would not have been undertaken without
> the distortions of the public will that representation inevitably
> introduces.
>
> Is our belief in representation simply a result of conditioning? How
> much influence can repetition and conditioning have? Can an entire
> population fervently believe some set of ideas with no proof, simply
> because of the prevailing attitude?
>
> Do I really need to answer this? Consider religion.
>
> We believe fervently that the masses are vulnerable in this way, but
> we vainly believe we are not subject to these same forces
> individually. I believe that representation only exists because it
> exploits our blind spots. Everywhere I look, I find evidence
> supporting this finding. I just looked up the history of referendums
> in my state. In the house, referendums sailed through. They were
> popular at the time... unions and other groups threw their support
> behind them. There was excellent public support. And it failed the
> senate... and failed again... and then got enacted to much hoorahs,
> with the provision that the public couldn't modify the basics of the
> government... the constitution and such... like... how elections were
> run... districts were drawn... trivial stuff like that.
>
> About two hundred times a year, I stood with my classmates and pledged
> my allegiance to a flag. I pledged my allegiance to the republic for
> which it stands. Every morning I met with my young impressionable
> peers, we faithfully recited this promise.
>
> I no longer pledge myself to the republic, but to the people. I pledge
> my support to the meek, that they may finally enjoy their inheritance,
> purchased in tears and blood.
>
> "I found that I was the wisest of all these men, because I knew I was
> not wise" - Socrates.
>
> Reason and truth above self.
>
> Parrhesia
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
> Hi Lata,
>
> No, you are not a mad, as far as I can see.
>
> At a first sight, I like your Citizen Mundi initiative
> very much. I realize, it is an excellent endeavour
> to rise people's participation from bottom-up, thus
> consistent with the (Direct) Democracy we look at.
>
> IMHO, it looks like the very opposite of the top-down
> "truths" with which some crazy scientists and other
> aspirant leaders of Democracy (?) keep on inundating
> so insistently the Yes-Men herd they want to head.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> antonio - psychiatrist
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
>
> Thank you Antonio,
> So I'm not crazy? Great!
>
> I always suspected that was the case but for the last 8 weeks I've
> been running Citizen Mundi and the data I've ben collecting confirms
> that is the case even among relative intellectual elites. If you have
> a minute, come and visit us at:
>
> *https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/*
>
> Thanks again,
> Lata
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Antonio Rossin
> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> *Sent:* Friday, 9 October, 2009 8:35:56
> *Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
>
> Lata,
>
> I totally agree with you: (the utmost democratic
> majority of) people are not fit to govern themselves.
>
> Very simply, average people do not want to take any
> political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
> to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
> requirement of Democracy.
>
> Now the problem becomes, analyzing why when and how
> such a dependent trait has been embedded into people's
> relational brain.
>
> I mean, once this imprinting mechanism had been exposed,
> its reversal could be all what today's Democracy needs of.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> antonio
>
>
>
>
>
> Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
>
> Thank you Joseph,
> I've just read your response.
>
> Whilst I agree with most of it, I am not so confident that the "one
> person/one vote" mantra is necessarily fair or sensible.
> Moreover, from the point of view of a long term strategy to push for
> more direct types of democracy, it is the biggest thorn on our side.
> Equal opportunity, yes, but whilst demanding individual responsibility.
>
> Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business
> leader, any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility
> about Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will
> laugh in your face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why?
> "Because people are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be
> incredibly naive to think otherwise"
>
> The main reason for the preservation of Guardianship and
> representative systems is, above all others, the notion that people
> are not fit to govern themselves.
>
> Let me give you an example. Ireland has just approved the Lisbon
> Treaty. Many people believe the Irish people were blackmailed,
> intimidated or brainwashed. Others say that they were informed, as
> opposed to a year ago, when they rejected the Treaty.
>
> Let me ask you this, would it really be so unfair to ask people to
> fill in the following questionnaire and shouldn't people have a
> responsibility to do certain basic research before demanding that the
> powers that be step down and hand everything over?
>
> 1)
> The treaty of Lisbon is:
> - A) document that concerns the Republic of Ireland exclusively.
> - B) A document that primarily concerns the European Union.
> - C) A document that primarily concerns the trade relationship between
> Ireland and Portugal.
>
> 2)
> The two main decision-making institutions within the EU are:
> - A) The Council and the Commission
> - B) The Parliament and the Commission
> - C) The Parliament and the Council.
>
> etc.
>
> Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a person who does not
> know these basic things is just as fit as someone who does to make a
> binding and irreversible decision for their country and for the future
> of the entire premise of geopolitics?
>
> I guess this is my dilemma. I am a supporter of democracy, I criticise
> democratic deficits wherever I see them and I believe that the next
> evolutionary step for Mankind is, somehow, related to the improvement
> of democracy. However, if I had to make a choice between giving the
> British people a referendum on, say, the Euro, or giving a handful of
> people at the top the decision, I would have to go with the second
> option... simply because I don't trust the British people to know
> anything that's not been fed to them by Rupert Murdock.
>
> Bring in the multiple choice test and the weighted vote and I would
> totally support the referendum instead.
>
> Simple.
> Lata
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Joseph Hammer
> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 October, 2009 10:26:37
> *Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
>
> I would tend to agree with Hamid and Jim.
>
> The American Medical Association is a great case study for this issue.
> They have more knowledge about the medical industry than the average
> individual, but that is not necessarily a good thing. It would be good
> if the motivation of the actors was the unbiased betterment of
> mankind. This is folly. No person can recognize the extent of his or
> her own bias. History tends to exonerate the idea that any group who
> possesses superior knowledge will use the information asymmetry to
> enrich themselves rather than society in general.
>
> I strongly believe in the "one person, one vote" principal. If
forced
> to compare the relative effects of ignorance and power consolodation,
> it might be a toss up. However, we will have ignorance through bias in
> any category of man. What is in our power to prevent is the
> consolodation of power. Wise kings start wars... uneducated peasants
> seldom think it worth the cost in blood.
>
> In most decisions of governance, it is ethical principals rather than
> specific knowledge that should drive our legislation.
>
> Plus, most people with "education" in a field will claim the
ability
> to make better decisions. This education is market driven, and not
> motivated by truth unless the market rewards accurate, unbiased
> information.
>
> Take economics, for example. The biggest employer of economists is the
> Federal Reserve. Like the alchemists of old, these rascally
> intellectuals buy into a completely fictitious notion... that you can
> create money from thin air... or out of lead, as the alchemists
> believed. In the heyday of alchemy, many scholarly types insisted that
> the layman, who doubted the wisdom of the alchemists, was unrefined
> and uneducated. A college cannot attract many students to a class that
> says, "Alchemy is bullshit" or "The best monetary policy is
> non-intervention by the state" or "None of these sophisticated
> economic models that we teach you have ever actually worked". All of
> these notions would kill the entire fields of curriculum.
>
> Plus, over a three-year period ending in October 1994, the Fed awarded
> 305 contracts to 209 professors worth a total of $3 million. Wow...
> that's about 15k per professor.
>
> Plus, to get tenure, you must publish. One critical way the Fed exerts
> control on academic economists is through its relationships with the
> field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary
> Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half
> of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll -- and
> the rest have been in the past.
>
> "Knowledge" is easily perverted by self interest. The assumption
that
> individual scholar can make better decisions is wholly dependent on
> the subject of inquiry and the incentives to mislead.
>
> If the subject of inquiry is highly technical, then I agree with
> Hamid. It is in the best interest of society to hire one or more
> researchers to investigate the topic. There are many ways to make this
> work well, but there are far more ways to screw it up... like letting
> representatives choose the investigators (unless we structure
> incentives to reward politicians for effective, honest choices... a
> far cry from the current situation).
>
> We need the knowledge, but we need to guard against interested dogma,
> and letting intellectuals have more say is, like Jim said, manipulable.
>
> Parrhesia
>
> - Vanity is hemlock to those who seek truth. Be careful what you consume.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Lata Gouveia <latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Do you agree that people who have more knowledge about a topic should
> have more say in a decision about that topic?
>
> Lata
> http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/raw-initiatives/
>
|