I agree. Sortition-based governance mechanisms enhanced with deliberative tools (such as pol.is) and enhanced with LLMs (and possibly prediction markets) show the greatest promise. Output quality of standard citizens' assemblies is already quite good. AI-enhanced deliberation (e.g. James Fishkin's recent work on deliberative polling) seems to be even better.
Random selection is the best way we've come up with so far to counter the misaligned incentives that come with other forms of government and maximize coordination over time horizons greater than a human careerspan. Great leaders can creat great institutions, but when they inevtiably die or retire, they are often replaced by status-seekers willing to degrade institutional quality for personal gain.
This is so damn intriguing. As a libertarian, I probably still vote for less governance, even if it has us circling the toilet bowl. But if someone could show me competent governance with maximized freedom, I’d probably buy that for a dollar.
I personally think we need to start thinking about freedom on different levels. Personal freedom, on the individual level, I think we can both agree should be maximized. Freedom of speech, religion, press etc. are core pillars of a free society. Economic freedom on the other hand, if governed more strictly than personal freedoms can lead to increased personal freedoms. For example, if the government completely socialized healthcare, those stakeholders will have their freedom to exploit the government and general population infringed, but the vast majority of Americans would have the freedom to receive healthcare increased.
To your point it is all about competency. If the government is competent enough to implement a system like this without the fraud and waste that we see in most government programs then I'm sure people can agree that socialized healthcare would be a net positive. But if mismanaged, then it could cause a greater harm to many people.
I believe in order to make a competent government. You need to somehow find a way to ensure those in power genuinely have the people's best interest at heart, until then I can understand why voting for less governance is appealing.
That competence is such a sticking point. I spent years managing health care programs for large and small businesses, most of which had more than adequate resources to pay for and sponsor health plans for employees, but were nonetheless so frustrated by difficulties of access, complexity, etc., that many otherwise quite conservative businesspersons would throw their hands up and say “I could almost vote for single payor.” It’s that core of the electorate that just want their government to be competent—at everything from decent roads to safe streets to clean water and fire control—who could be convinced to support a single payor system. That’s not necessarily the same thing as socialized medicine, as Medicare and Medicaid demonstrate, because it doesn’t require government ownership or even direct management of the means of “production.” But it’s certainly a step toward a more rational system of the financing of the cost of medical care. We already socialize many of these costs through very inefficient means, such as mandated care of the indigent, bankruptcy, offshore reinsurance, state guarantee funds, etc. a single payor system *could* be more rational, *if* government could demonstrate voter-instilling confidence through competence. And I agree that this is an example of less economic freedom— not normally a good thing, but…..—in exchange for greater individual and group welfare. That “if” is doing a lot of work though. And it’s damn frustrating, because all we truly require of our government is competence.
We desperately need to begin mankind's managed evolution.
Respect, consideration, patience, care, concern... virtually all of humanity's virtues are in decline. Greed, selfishness, drama & violence are running the human race! We aren't in control!
At this point, we should be programming our genes, evolving our pets into sentience & exploring time & space. We're horribly behind & it could spell the end of us if we don't learn responsibility.
Problem is the forces managing evolution would be economic. Get ready for a race of humble workaholics who only need a few hours of sleep and are happy to live crammed by the hundreds into barracks while giving all pay to their owners/slavemasters.
To avoid this we'd need to first solve the problem of capitalism sacrificing human values for the sake of economymaxxing (such as Robin's concern about fertility--childrearing is just becoming flat-out unafforable).
As we move further and further away from nature & the need to survive, what will motivate man? Right now it's definitely self, greed, acceptance, fame... everything is profit, at the moment. Even victimhood is selfish.
I fear for the future: it'll always be easier to take the low effort path.
And that's where I'm fatalistic: when have humans *ever* shown an ability to coordinate and avoid bad outcomes like that. Most of history seems to be small aristocratic groups getting rich off everyone else's backs.
Wanting "managed cultural evolution" is like wanting a managed stock fund that consistently beats random returns. It's a fine thing to ask for, but does it exist? The growth of index funds seems convincing evidence of many peoples' loss of faith on that score.
Whether it's managing cultural evolution or stock funds, I think there's a strong case to be made that nobody can do better than random, and that anyone who purports to is a salesperson trying to score a commission.
Now that said, there are across-the-board improvements that make everyone's returns get better: Transparency, less corruption, better reporting standards, better accountability, and so on. Perhaps the way to improve culture evolution isn't to try to steer it, but to improve our visibility into culture and its impacts.
Competitive governance. We are stagnant because we cling to monopoly government within circumscribed borders. Embracing voluntarism and the non-aggression principle frees us from stagnation and allows free people seeking peace and prosperity a way to organize that isn’t poisoned at the root with coercion.
Why? How? What are the axes you're using here? If you make a (rather absurd) strawman fight a steelman, is it insightful when the steelman wins?
Are there examples of the strawman?
Can you try to empathize with the strawman a bit? (the late Dan Dennet's talk on dangerous memes is an inspiration)
Maybe start with "Natural" rather than "Dumb"?
Some systems, microcultures, and institutions are designed to defend themselves against dilution/ entropy (e.g. via bureaucracies, consensus driven change).
I agree. Sortition-based governance mechanisms enhanced with deliberative tools (such as pol.is) and enhanced with LLMs (and possibly prediction markets) show the greatest promise. Output quality of standard citizens' assemblies is already quite good. AI-enhanced deliberation (e.g. James Fishkin's recent work on deliberative polling) seems to be even better.
Random selection is the best way we've come up with so far to counter the misaligned incentives that come with other forms of government and maximize coordination over time horizons greater than a human careerspan. Great leaders can creat great institutions, but when they inevtiably die or retire, they are often replaced by status-seekers willing to degrade institutional quality for personal gain.
I've written about this in more detail here: https://unfacts.substack.com/cp/168086661
This is so damn intriguing. As a libertarian, I probably still vote for less governance, even if it has us circling the toilet bowl. But if someone could show me competent governance with maximized freedom, I’d probably buy that for a dollar.
I personally think we need to start thinking about freedom on different levels. Personal freedom, on the individual level, I think we can both agree should be maximized. Freedom of speech, religion, press etc. are core pillars of a free society. Economic freedom on the other hand, if governed more strictly than personal freedoms can lead to increased personal freedoms. For example, if the government completely socialized healthcare, those stakeholders will have their freedom to exploit the government and general population infringed, but the vast majority of Americans would have the freedom to receive healthcare increased.
To your point it is all about competency. If the government is competent enough to implement a system like this without the fraud and waste that we see in most government programs then I'm sure people can agree that socialized healthcare would be a net positive. But if mismanaged, then it could cause a greater harm to many people.
I believe in order to make a competent government. You need to somehow find a way to ensure those in power genuinely have the people's best interest at heart, until then I can understand why voting for less governance is appealing.
That competence is such a sticking point. I spent years managing health care programs for large and small businesses, most of which had more than adequate resources to pay for and sponsor health plans for employees, but were nonetheless so frustrated by difficulties of access, complexity, etc., that many otherwise quite conservative businesspersons would throw their hands up and say “I could almost vote for single payor.” It’s that core of the electorate that just want their government to be competent—at everything from decent roads to safe streets to clean water and fire control—who could be convinced to support a single payor system. That’s not necessarily the same thing as socialized medicine, as Medicare and Medicaid demonstrate, because it doesn’t require government ownership or even direct management of the means of “production.” But it’s certainly a step toward a more rational system of the financing of the cost of medical care. We already socialize many of these costs through very inefficient means, such as mandated care of the indigent, bankruptcy, offshore reinsurance, state guarantee funds, etc. a single payor system *could* be more rational, *if* government could demonstrate voter-instilling confidence through competence. And I agree that this is an example of less economic freedom— not normally a good thing, but…..—in exchange for greater individual and group welfare. That “if” is doing a lot of work though. And it’s damn frustrating, because all we truly require of our government is competence.
We desperately need to begin mankind's managed evolution.
Respect, consideration, patience, care, concern... virtually all of humanity's virtues are in decline. Greed, selfishness, drama & violence are running the human race! We aren't in control!
At this point, we should be programming our genes, evolving our pets into sentience & exploring time & space. We're horribly behind & it could spell the end of us if we don't learn responsibility.
Problem is the forces managing evolution would be economic. Get ready for a race of humble workaholics who only need a few hours of sleep and are happy to live crammed by the hundreds into barracks while giving all pay to their owners/slavemasters.
To avoid this we'd need to first solve the problem of capitalism sacrificing human values for the sake of economymaxxing (such as Robin's concern about fertility--childrearing is just becoming flat-out unafforable).
Agreed.
As we move further and further away from nature & the need to survive, what will motivate man? Right now it's definitely self, greed, acceptance, fame... everything is profit, at the moment. Even victimhood is selfish.
I fear for the future: it'll always be easier to take the low effort path.
And that's where I'm fatalistic: when have humans *ever* shown an ability to coordinate and avoid bad outcomes like that. Most of history seems to be small aristocratic groups getting rich off everyone else's backs.
Wanting "managed cultural evolution" is like wanting a managed stock fund that consistently beats random returns. It's a fine thing to ask for, but does it exist? The growth of index funds seems convincing evidence of many peoples' loss of faith on that score.
Whether it's managing cultural evolution or stock funds, I think there's a strong case to be made that nobody can do better than random, and that anyone who purports to is a salesperson trying to score a commission.
Now that said, there are across-the-board improvements that make everyone's returns get better: Transparency, less corruption, better reporting standards, better accountability, and so on. Perhaps the way to improve culture evolution isn't to try to steer it, but to improve our visibility into culture and its impacts.
Alas, the same coee issue prevents bith cultural and governance evolution
Competitive governance. We are stagnant because we cling to monopoly government within circumscribed borders. Embracing voluntarism and the non-aggression principle frees us from stagnation and allows free people seeking peace and prosperity a way to organize that isn’t poisoned at the root with coercion.
That’s the evolution in governance you seek.
The coordination costs that come with changing government seem insurmountable
And yet governments have changed in history.
Why? How? What are the axes you're using here? If you make a (rather absurd) strawman fight a steelman, is it insightful when the steelman wins?
Are there examples of the strawman?
Can you try to empathize with the strawman a bit? (the late Dan Dennet's talk on dangerous memes is an inspiration)
Maybe start with "Natural" rather than "Dumb"?
Some systems, microcultures, and institutions are designed to defend themselves against dilution/ entropy (e.g. via bureaucracies, consensus driven change).
who is “We”?