[ExI] Critiquing democracy

[Tomaz Kristan]

Well, I think all the non-technological solutions and paths are impossible
on the long run. Even if the democracy is an evil sister of the evil
demotic communism, that can't be mended by the old fashioned political
upheaval and restoring some "natural order" in say 100 years time.

For in 100 years it will be all long over with this pre-Singularity state
of affairs. We need some politics for another 10, maybe 20, maybe even 30
years. But not after that.

Still, it is possible that the technology advancing will stop one day in
the near future. Not likely, but possible. For such a case I see this nRx
movement like a breeze of a fresh air and a hope. I really do!

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Cesar Garcia Saez <cesargarciasaez at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I've been wondering for a long time for an approach similar to the Partido
> Azar, or Random Party. Their proposal is that the best representation of
> society is not professional politicians, but a random selection of people,
> than has to work as politicians for a mandate and then can't be re-elected
> again.
>
> The random selection process is always the tricky part of the discussion
> but there might be means to get it right.
>
> You can check the website here http://www.partidoazar.com/ - Spanish site
> only
>
> Best,
> César
>
> >Michael Anissimov?<michaelanissimov at gmail.com>?, 5/3/2015 8:12 AM:
>
>
> >We're programmed to think that anything other than democracy is tyranny,
> but that's not >historically accurate.
>
>
> >I think Brin put it best in "The Transparent Society" where he outlined
> why *open societies* are >the important thing. We want and need open-ended,
> self-correcting societies where citizens can >have their own life projects.?
>
>
> >Democracy is one way to approach this, but it is a formal/administrative
> solution, not a >guarantee - there are plenty of closed democracies that
> have all the formal routines of >democracy but do not allow citizens to
> actually point out what is wrong, hold officeholders >accountable, and get
> rid of them or non-functional institutions if needed. One can well imagine
> >non-democratic but open societies; however, any such proposal better
> demonstrate how it can >handle self-correction better than democracy.
> Invoking technocrats or other groups of >professional correctors is not
> enough, since they both have a tendency to be subverted and, as >Brin
> eloquently points out, actual societal error correction requires a very
> broad set of eyes >scrutinizing what is going on - if the man on the street
> cannot point out something being corrupt >(including the anti-corruption
> task force), then corruption is bound to take over.?
>
> >This is particularly important from an xrisk perspective. The biggest
> human-caused disasters >>(wars, democides) have occurred because of
> government power: we should be *extremely* >careful about how we set up
> these potentially non-friendly artificial intelligences. Lock-in effects
> >of bad government choices have massive intergenerational costs.?
>
>
>
> >Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of
> Oxford University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150305/c4ae6d22/attachment.html>