Can states like NY create an in-house consultancy whose primary purpose is the state's own projects, but also make the services available to other smaller states as needed (for a price)?
That's a very good point. I currently lean towards requiring every citizen to register for the lottery once every ten or so years (for one year of service). If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances, but at least they would be able to plan for it to some extent. This might also require a cultural shift for people to accept it, but maybe not a radical one.
I mean, if you want to be a sociopath about it, that's part of the risk in the system. As long as we can confidently establish that a supermajority of people would take the job seriously and would be happy with the compensation, we can afford a few bad apples.
Either way, I can imagine that if you were to pledge to purposefully vote against the population's interests in front of a judge, and the judge bought it, they may be allowed to disqualify you on these grounds (and probably slap you with a fine). I wouldn't want to make it impossible to get out of this duty, just difficult enough that most people wouldn't do it.
Voting for policies that hurt people at large isn't "fighting back". What has the public done to you to deserve this? It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food because the restaurant owner is overworking you, and then saying no, the sociopath is the guy who's forcing me to come in on the weekend. Fuck that noise, you're both sociopaths.
If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all, or you can focus your energy on changing the system so that it works on a purely voluntary basis. That's perfectly fine. But let's not pretend that voting for bad policies, which will inevitably hurt people who have nothing to do with your predicament, is a proper way to fight back.
> What has the public done to you to deserve this?
Well, what they did was force me into temporary slavery.
> It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food
If the customers were forcing me to work in a restaurant, I think I might do that.
> If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all
Why would I do that, when a much more effective method of screwing over the people who forced me into this, is by voting for bad policy?
The people who would force me into this want good policy. So I do the opposite of what they want.
This is why you don't do stuff like this. Because the people who you are forcing into slavery aren't going to play "nice" with your plan. They will instead take actions that you don't like, regardless of your complaints about it, or regardless how "immoral" you believe it to be.
I do not have to live by your code of ethics. I will instead live by mine, and screw over your plan in the way that hurts everyone the most.
You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.
I would engage in this behavior specially because it would very effectively sabotage this plan to force people into the work.
What? The "public" didn't force you to do anything. The public is just people.
You're part of the public, for Christ's sake. A representative who would act as you propose wouldn't be screwing some mysterious nefarious entity that likes to enslave people, they'd be screwing you.
> You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.
What about the part of the public who doesn't like this system, doesn't want to force you to do anything, and would like to change the way it works? If you're "sabotaging" the system by voting for "bad policies," you're screwing them over along with everyone else. Can they complain? Because I can guarantee you that they will.
Anyway. Let me put it this way: if 95% of the public supports this system, it doesn't matter how hard you try to sabotage it. It won't do dick. If a significant percentage hates the system, let's say 20%, then 20% of the "enslaved" representatives really want to change the system to work on a voluntary basis. Surely they can bloody negotiate with the remaining 80% to enact a reform, instead of lashing out against the public at large, who can't really do anything about the system because they weren't picked by the lottery.
> it doesn't matter how hard you try to sabotage it. It won't do dick.
Sure it will. It will help cause more bad policies to happen, at the margin.
There would be lots of controversial laws, and 10% of people voting here to mess things up, would effect something.
That's my revenge on the 90% that forced me into this, because of their "support".
> Surely they can bloody negotiate
Why do that, when we can just sabotage things? You don't get to force me into this, and complain when I fight back.
People do not have to react the way that you want them to, or that you find fair. Burning everything to the ground, in whatever way I can, is a perfectly acceptable retaliation to slavery.
Sure, there would be collateral damage. But there is always collateral damage. No matter what political stance a person is fighting for.
> Sure it will. It will help cause more bad policies to happen, at the margin.
Very unreliably. You will only be able to influence policies that are nearly 50/50, but if they are 50/50, that is because there is widespread disagreement over which option is better. This means there is a fairly high chance that your "sabotage" vote ironically results in better policy. Think about it: the issue is 50/50, and you have the decisive vote. Half of the voters are wrong. What do you think the odds are that you're in the half that knows what it's doing?
My analysis is that odds that the average saboteur would vote for a bad policy ought to be roughly proportional to the proportion of honest voters that pick the good policy. Unfortunately, these odds are a toss-up when the saboteur's influence is maximized.
> Why do that, when we can just sabotage things?
To get results. Your gripes are understandable enough not to be dismissed, and if you can make a credible threat of sabotage, you may be able to cause a reform and perhaps get your freedom back before the end of the term. Sabotage can be a valid tactic to get what you want, especially if you're in desperate straits, but I don't see how your stunts are supposed to achieve anything at all, let alone anything that cannot be achieved more efficiently through collaboration.
> You don't get to force me into this, and complain when I fight back.
Was I actually complaining, though? When I say your behavior in this situation would be sociopathic, I mean it as a statement of fact. Notice that I followed the remark with "that's part of the risk in the system," clearly indicating that I am willing to eat that loss. I'm not complaining. I'm accounting. (Also, I genuinely think you would be working against your own interests.)
> People do not have to react the way that you want them to, or that you find fair.
I know many people won't react the way I want them to. I know some people will act like sociopaths. This is a variable to quantify: if enough people would turn into madmen if they were forced to do this, well, that invalidates conscription, and it's back to the drawing board. Likewise, if a large number of people think my system is immoral, okay, sure, let's do something else.
I mean, I'm not married to the specifics: I think it is important to make sure that the sample is statistically unbiased, and conscription is the easiest way to do this, but if we can get close enough on a voluntary basis, hey, that's even better.
I do maintain that your reaction would be disproportionate and ultimately immoral. Again, though, I'm not complaining about it, because that would be pointless: you do you. But I'm taking note of it so that I can account for the seriousness of the threat.
Edit: And if the threat is serious enough, you win, really. I would oppose conscription and you wouldn't have to sabotage anything (well, if I had my way). Just want you to know I am listening, even if I disapprove of your behavior.
> What do you think the odds are that you're in the half that knows what it's doing?
Well then it doesn't matter what I do, so I am not sure why you'd be so angry about it.
> hen I say your behavior in this situation would be sociopathic
It is not sociopathic to retaliate against people who want to force you into temporary slavery. It is instead called justice.
> would turn into madmen
There isn't nothing "mad" about fighting crazies like you who want to force people into slavery.
Instead, the madmen are the ones trying to take away our rights.
Honestly, my actions are fairly tame. I didn't even say that I would engage in violence or anything. I expect that other people might, and I wouldn't blame them.
Violence is a perfectly logical response attempts to force people into slavery. I wouldn't do it, though (because of the other alternatives at my disposal).
> Well then it doesn't matter what I do, so I am not sure why you'd be so angry about it.
I'm curious how you think you can evaluate someone's "anger" in written comments on the Internet. I'm not angry. I'm judging you and listing all the problems I see with what you say you would do, but there's frankly no need to be worked up to do any of that.
> It is not sociopathic to retaliate against people who want to force you into temporary slavery. It is instead called justice.
Okay, so my view is that equating this system to slavery is disingenuous, hysterical and ridiculous for too many reasons to count, and that your "retaliation" is unfocused, ineffective and reckless. Your view is that I'm a sociopathic tyrant.
Okay.
But you know what? Who cares.
I don't need your approval. You don't need mine. The only thing that matters is that I want an unbiased sample, but saboteurs, insofar that they purposefully act contrary to what they think is good, constitute an unwanted bias. In other words, you don't want to be conscripted, and I don't want to conscript you. We can probably work something out.
> Honestly, my actions are fairly tame. I didn't even say that I would engage in violence or anything. I expect that other people might, and I wouldn't blame them.
If by engaging in violence, you mean violent resistance to anyone who tries to force you to go to parliament, I consider this more acceptable than your idea of going and voting for bad policies, and I do not think of it as sociopathic (I also strongly oppose having such an enforcement policy).
If you mean random acts of terrorism, then this is insane and you've lost me completely.
> the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it
This isn't a change, it's what we have now. The problem is that the kind of people that want to take it are not the kind of people you actually want doing it.
By serious unforeseen circumstances I mean things like getting cancer or being crippled in a freak car accident. Nobody's going to do either of these things just to get out of government duty.
Also, what's important is for the sample to be representative, so it's fine if a very motivated minority gets out of it, as long as it doesn't create a significative bias in the lottery.
But yes, they should be paid handsomely. And as I mentioned in another comment, their debts should be paid in full to make them less vulnerable to bribes.
Use a tax incentive. It should be set high enough that most people will consider it worth their time, but low enough that anyone who really doesn't want to be in politics won't be financially harmed.
I've always wondered what it would be like if there is a total black out in a big city. Now I can see it in these pictures. If the blackout isn't exactly simultaneous, would the stars slowly emerge one by one? How cool would that be!
Yes, they would. If you're in the middle of a remote desert during the day, you would be able to look up and see only blue sky. As the sun sets and the night becomes darker, you'll gradually see more and more stars until you see as many as you'll be able to when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth from you.
Well, when you know a bit of about how browsers work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play HTTP, HTML, CSS, ECMAscript, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.
Let's simplify.
You just connected your computer to www.google.com.
Simple, isn't it?
What just actually happened?
Well, when you know a bit about how networks work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play DNS, TCP, UDP, IP, Wifi, Ethernet, DOCSIS, OC, SONET, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.
Let's simplify.
You just typed www.google.com in the location bar of your browser.
Simple, isn't it?
What just actually happened?
Well, when you know a bit about how operating systems work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a kernel, a USB host stack, an input dispatcher, an event handler, a font hinter, a sub-pixel rasterizer, a windowing system, a graphics driver, and more, all of those written in high-level languages that get processed by compilers, linkers, optimizers, interpreters, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.
Let's simplify.
You just pressed a key on your keyboard.
Simple, isn't it?
What just actually happened?
Well, when you know about bit about how input peripherals work, it's not quite that simple. You've just put into play a power regulator, a debouncer, an input multiplexer, a USB device stack, a USB hub stack, all of that implemented in a single chip. That chip is built around thinly sliced wafers of highly purified single-crystal silicon ingot, doped with minute quantities of other atoms that are blasted into the crystal structure, interconnected with multiple layers of aluminum or copper, that are deposited according to patterns of high-energy ultraviolet light that are focused to a precision of a fraction of a micron, connected to the outside world via thin gold wires, all inside a packaging made of a dimensionally and thermally stable resin. The doping patterns and the interconnects implement transistors, which are grouped together to create logic gates. In some parts of the chip, logic gates are combined to create arithmetic and bitwise functions, which are combined to create an ALU. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bistable loops, which are lined up into rows, which are combined with selectors to create a register bank. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bus controllers and instruction decoders and microcode to create an execution scheduler. In another part of the chip, they're combined into address and data multiplexers and timing circuitry to create a memory controller. There's even more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they'll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.
Can we simplify further?
In fact, very scarily, no, we can't. We can barely comprehend the complexity of a single chip in a computer keyboard, and yet there's no simpler level. The next step takes us to the software that is used to design the chip's logic, and that software itself has a level of complexity that requires to go back to the top of the loop.
Today's computers are so complex that they can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. In turn the computers used for the design and manufacture are so complex that they themselves can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. You'd have to go through many such loops to get back to a level that could possibly be re-built from scratch.
Once you start to understand how our modern devices work and how they're created, it's impossible to not be dizzy about the depth of everything that's involved, and to not be in awe about the fact that they work at all, when Murphy's law says that they simply shouldn't possibly work.
For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. That is the reason why many people can find computers so frustrating to use: there are so many things that can possibly go wrong that some of them inevitably will, but the complexity goes so deep that it's impossible for most users to be able to do anything about any error.
That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. The gap is so large that it's not even possible any more to have a single person be an intermediate between those two groups, and that's why e.g. we end up with those convoluted technical support call centers and their multiple tiers. Without such deep support structures, you end up with the frustrating situation that we see when end users have access to a bug database that is directly used by engineers: neither the end users nor the engineers get the information that they need to accomplish their goals.
That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny, a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally can't imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie's influence had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie world.
Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. That's the ultimate bikeshedding: just like the proverbial discussions in the town hall about a nuclear power plant end up being about the paint color for the plant's bike shed, the patent discussions about modern computing systems end up being about screen sizes and icon ordering, because in both cases those are the only aspect that the people involved in the discussion are capable of discussing, even though they are irrelevant to the actual function of the overall system being discussed.
Nevertheless, people in Florida are able to exert control over people in Alaska, and vice versa. That seems incredibly absurd to me, what do they share beyond a common language and currency? Even the distance between Portugal and Finland is only half of that, and the EU is rather different than the US Federal Government.
If we all needed to band together to increase our military might in order to keep razing hoards of Canadians at bay, then I may see the need for it, and clearly the importance of common travel and trade agreements cannot be overstated, but right now our system enables politicians elected in flyover country to tell people living in Portland what they may or may not do in the privacy of their own home. The opposite is equally unfair. Where is the value in that?
These are different communities, different regions, different societies being forced to play politics with each other. If we need to start sacrificing the quality of the democracy (reducing representation per individual) in order to keep a system so absurd running smoothly, then it should be downsized.
Chop it all in half, or more, until the size of it resembles a more reasonably sized country. Two to four federal governments instead of one would make more sense. Representation per individual could increase back to previous levels without resulting in deadlock.
Lest I come off the wrong way, my problem is not that the Federal government is strong, but rather that the Federal government covers a regions and people too diverse. I'm not a "state's rights" nut, just a Cascadia nut.
I'm more inclined to believe that the Federal government needs to turn over more control to the individual states, and that congress is reaching too far over their boundaries.
Don't get me wrong, there are several things I think the government needs to do including managing the economy, maintaining military/ law enforcement just to name a few.
But then you have a congressional hearing about steroid use in baseball. We have government tell us what we can and can't do with our own property (cell phone unlocking, etc). And I think, is that what we pay these guys for? They can't even balance a budget because their scope is way too broad.
I agree that government needs to be downsized, just maybe in a different way.
