Well, I agree that FPTP is a horribly poor reflection of real voter sentiments, and that a better system would be an improvement.
(Personally, I find the idea of "delegative representation"; similar to what they call "liquid democracy" in Europe, intriguing. Tho I think I wouldn't support changes in delegation between elections.)
But the larger question is - even if we have a system that accurately reflects voter sentiment - is the voting public smart enough to make reasonable decisions? Does the majority even care about the erosion of their liberties?
Just talking to my neighbors, there are a huge number of people who fundamentally don't understand or support the idea of "rights" at all - except for the right of a majority (50% plus one) to impose its arbitrary will on a minority.
Revolutions famously eat their young. And are bloody. Looking around the world, I see few places that are doing substantially better than the US. It is far from clear to me that a revolution would (a) succeed, or (b) result in an improvement.
I live in a medium-sized town in New England. I personally know many of the people who run the elections and compute the results. They're honest. (Not often terribly bright, but honest.)
Maybe you're correct and there is massive corruption higher up the chain of tallying results, or elsewhere in the US.
But never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Beware of basing your revolution on the assumption that the majority is with you, despite vote totals indicating otherwise. You may be mistaken.
If cars are programmed to minimize total casualties (rather than protect passengers), it may be possible to troll a car into killing its passengers.
Once the behavior of the self-driving cars is generally understood, a murderer could deliberately drive another vehicle such that the car will think it has no choice but to kill its passengers. (Drive into a tree, off a cliff, etc.)
The real problem with these hypothetical scenarios is that in the real world the car, or driver, or trolley switch operator, can never be 100% sure what the consequences of their actions will be.
Maybe the school bus is empty.
Maybe throwing the fat man onto the tracks won't accomplish anything other than killing the fat man.
In the face of uncertainty, I think there's a moral argument in favor of avoiding certain harm, even if that increases the chance of uncertain harm.
[Practical answer: It doesn't matter - self-driving cars will still be safer for the passengers either way.]
On the post: Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
Re: Why carry large amounts of cash?
On the post: Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
Re:
That bitch surely did exactly what she was trained to do.
On the post: Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
Re: Euros
Yen, Pound, Franc (he's a St. Bernard), Peso, Krona, Ruble, Lira, and Rupee.
On the post: Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
Re: Re: stopping an over-bearing government
On the post: NSA -- Despite Claiming It Doesn't Engage In Economic Espionage -- Engaged In Economic Espionage
Why economic espionage is such an important moral argument for the NSA
They do it for higher reasons. For...honor.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: "Voters don't care."
(Personally, I find the idea of "delegative representation"; similar to what they call "liquid democracy" in Europe, intriguing. Tho I think I wouldn't support changes in delegation between elections.)
But the larger question is - even if we have a system that accurately reflects voter sentiment - is the voting public smart enough to make reasonable decisions? Does the majority even care about the erosion of their liberties?
Just talking to my neighbors, there are a huge number of people who fundamentally don't understand or support the idea of "rights" at all - except for the right of a majority (50% plus one) to impose its arbitrary will on a minority.
Revolutions famously eat their young. And are bloody. Looking around the world, I see few places that are doing substantially better than the US. It is far from clear to me that a revolution would (a) succeed, or (b) result in an improvement.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: This is why
But I don't diagnose the problem the same way.
My point is that despite the fact that our elected politicians "veer widely" from their promises, they still get re-elected.
Which seems to show that the majority of voters don't care.
Or, at least, that they care more about the team red vs. team blue contest than they do about their own civil rights and liberties.
I think the problem is the obsession with "red vs. blue" that blinds the vast majority to the real issues.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: enough is enough
It's what you do when the law is unjust and immoral.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Re: Voting in USA
I live in a medium-sized town in New England. I personally know many of the people who run the elections and compute the results. They're honest. (Not often terribly bright, but honest.)
Maybe you're correct and there is massive corruption higher up the chain of tallying results, or elsewhere in the US.
But never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Beware of basing your revolution on the assumption that the majority is with you, despite vote totals indicating otherwise. You may be mistaken.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Which mechanism would that be?
And I voted for our current Fuhrer the first time because I liked the talk about transparency, closing GitMo, etc.
In each case I was betrayed (OK, I was a sucker in the first place).
But here's the thing - I voted against both of them the second time around.
Yet they won.
So, obviously, most voters didn't feel betrayed. By either of them.
I could go into a long analysis of why, but as long as the majority of voters keep supporting these monsters, nothing will change.
And anybody attempting revolution will lose.
It's not about team blue vs. team red. It's about honest vs. liars. Until the voters get it, we're stuck.
On the post: The Ridiculous Redactions The DOJ Required To Try To Hide The Details Of Its Google Gag Order
Welcome to the Star Chamber
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Just a suggestion ...
Call them "Stasi", or "Checka" instead.
See, isn't that better?
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: 'impeding the investigation'
On the post: Daily Deal: Intocircuit 15000mAh Power Castle External Battery
I doubt it
But I strongly suspect it's only 1500 mAH (1.5 AH). There's an extra zero in there.
I don't think a 15 AH battery would fit in a case that size.
On the post: New Hampshire Legislators Propose Law Banning Warrantless Use Of Tracking Devices
New Hampshire is special
They can afford this by paying them $100/year each. Plus mileage to Concord (the capital).
So - no professional politicians in the legislature.
See what a difference that makes?
On the post: Chicago Preacher Tries To Stop Spike Lee From Using 'Chiraq' As Title Of Upcoming Film
France?
What does Chicago have to do with the former President of France?
On the post: Sunday Times Editor: If You Have Questions About Our Snowden Story, Address Them To UK Government
Fact checking?
Guess not.
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
Danger - Death by Trolling
If cars are programmed to minimize total casualties (rather than protect passengers), it may be possible to troll a car into killing its passengers.
Once the behavior of the self-driving cars is generally understood, a murderer could deliberately drive another vehicle such that the car will think it has no choice but to kill its passengers. (Drive into a tree, off a cliff, etc.)
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
The car (or driver) can never be SURE
Maybe the school bus is empty.
Maybe throwing the fat man onto the tracks won't accomplish anything other than killing the fat man.
In the face of uncertainty, I think there's a moral argument in favor of avoiding certain harm, even if that increases the chance of uncertain harm.
[Practical answer: It doesn't matter - self-driving cars will still be safer for the passengers either way.]
On the post: Huge Loss For Free Speech In Europe: Human Rights Court Says Sites Liable For User Comments
Re: Unless this gets overturned like, immediately, the fallout over this ruling is going to be huge.
That's the only way to turn the EU around and make them wake up to what they've done.
Sometimes things have to get worse before anybody bothers to make them better. Let's hope they just got bad enough.
Next >>