Discussion:
Politics in SF
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-24 10:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?

I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
David Johnston
2017-06-24 16:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Mute, Perry Rhodan, and Catspaw, have rule by computer (although the computer in Catspaw was programmed with the memories of destructively copied human minds). Isaac Asimov had unofficial rule by computer (including the one where only one computer-selected person votes).

States where corporations run things and you only get a vote if you're a shareholder are not that uncommon.
David Goldfarb
2017-06-25 05:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Isaac Asimov had unofficial rule by computer
(including the one where only one computer-selected person votes).
Note that in that last one, it wasn't a case of that person's vote
deciding everything. The computer took the person's responses to
a wide variety of questions, and extrapolated from that to determine
what the outcome would be if a nation-wide election were actually held.
--
David Goldfarb |"The message sent by [turning 'virus' into]
***@gmail.com |'virii' is, 'i iz a intelekchul cuz i knowz ladin'"
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Kennedy, on rec.arts.sf.composition
David Johnston
2017-06-25 17:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Mute, Perry Rhodan, and Catspaw, have rule by computer (although the computer in Catspaw was programmed with the memories of destructively copied human minds). Isaac Asimov had unofficial rule by computer (including the one where only one computer-selected person votes).
States where corporations run things and you only get a vote if you're a shareholder are not that uncommon.
Another thing sf has that reality doesn't is the variant of dictatorship where the dictator solves the problem of succession by just never dying.
m***@sky.com
2017-06-24 20:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I claim most forms of organization tend to degenerate into something once loosely described as feudalism - a hierarchy in in which those lower down trade service in return for protection from their feudal Lord (or Lady).

Much Science Fiction is in fact based on historical backgrounds - the Foundation trilogy was inspired by Gibbon's Decline and Fall - some parts pretty directly so, like Bel Riose for Belisarius. Some is warning or salesmanship - 1984 for warning, various versions of libertarianism for salesmanship. Genuinely new backgrounds?

James H. Schmitz's Telzey stories have as background the overgovernment, which appears to ride herd on governments, giving them a pretty wide range of action - which means that some environments are pretty rugged, with private wars being legally declared.

C.J.Cherryh's Mahendo'Sat in the Chanur novels have a government based around Personages - charismatic and perhaps semi-religious figures. No doubt all well and good for the Mahendo'Sat but also tricky for others, as they can't seem to shake off the habit of anointing and dealing with personages when they deal with other species, instead of dealing with properly appointed government officials. Also in that story, the Hani have a loose confederation of clans, having been given technology by the Mahendo'Sat when they were in an almost pre-technological stage of civilisation.

Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.

I think it most likely that we'll have a democracy - something that calls itself a democracy, and that is a legitimate democracy at least in the sense that its citizens are reasonably happy with whatever passes as an electoral system and don't want to try and overthrow it. Something fitting this description could still be almost unrecognisable to us, if it was based on a different culture, different ways of working, or much more advanced social science.

It is possible that we could have an Empire - rule over a collection of globally diverse but locally more uniform populations by an elite that does not identify with the vast majority of the citizens. I could imagine an Imperial professional administrator telling me that they had found out that, in the long run, the only options were Empire or uniformity produced by cultural or literal genocide. (I could also imagine not believing them, at least not without proof).
J. Clarke
2017-06-24 21:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I claim most forms of organization tend to degenerate into something once loosely described as feudalism - a hierarchy in in which those lower down trade service in return for protection from their feudal Lord (or Lady).
Much Science Fiction is in fact based on historical backgrounds - the Foundation trilogy was inspired by Gibbon's Decline and Fall - some parts pretty directly so, like Bel Riose for Belisarius. Some is warning or salesmanship - 1984 for warning, various versions of libertarianism for salesmanship. Genuinely new backgrounds?
James H. Schmitz's Telzey stories have as background the overgovernment, which appears to ride herd on governments, giving them a pretty wide range of action - which means that some environments are pretty rugged, with private wars being legally declared.
C.J.Cherryh's Mahendo'Sat in the Chanur novels have a government based around Personages - charismatic and perhaps semi-religious figures. No doubt all well and good for the Mahendo'Sat but also tricky for others, as they can't seem to shake off the habit of anointing and dealing with personages when they deal with other species, instead of dealing with properly appointed government officials. Also in that story, the Hani have a loose confederation of clans, having been
given technology by the Mahendo'Sat when they were in an almost pre-technological stage of civilisation.
Post by m***@sky.com
Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.
I think it most likely that we'll have a democracy - something that calls itself a democracy, and that is a legitimate democracy at least in the sense that its citizens are reasonably happy with whatever passes as an electoral system and don't want to try and overthrow it. Something fitting this description could still be almost unrecognisable to us, if it was based on a different culture, different ways of working, or much more advanced social science.
It is possible that we could have an Empire - rule over a collection of globally diverse but locally more uniform populations by an elite that does not identify with the vast majority of the citizens. I could imagine an Imperial professional administrator telling me that they had found out that, in the long run, the only options were Empire or uniformity produced by cultural or literal genocide. (I could also imagine not believing them, at least not without proof).
I can see some form of oligarchy in which the citizenry has a negative on
the actions of the oligarchs, but the oligarchs aren't elected. Democracy
isn't shown to be long term stable--eventually it's likely to destroy
itself.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-24 22:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other form
of government is long term stable, either.

Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-06-25 09:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other form
of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except what they actually demonstrated was that his plan wasn't foolproof and asteroid damage caused the Eternal Emperor to go insane.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-25 18:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other
form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except what they actually demonstrated was that his plan wasn't
foolproof
That's what I said, yes.
Post by h***@gmail.com
and asteroid damage caused the Eternal Emperor to go
insane.
It reads more like the asteroid damage caused a breakdown that had
prevented the long standing insanity from manifesting. He'd be crazy
for, probably, centuries, at that point.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-06-25 18:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other form
of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was mostly outside
events driving someone insane. So that Sten could set the universe up to
go into eternal war.

Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it while who
ever controls the source get an practically unlimited amount for free.
So whoever controls the source still controls the universe and now
everyone knows where the source is.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-25 18:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other
form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was mostly
outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely. There is
_nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book. Expensive, but
expected to become more practical with further development and
scaling up.
Post by Magewolf
while who ever controls the source get an practically unlimited
amount for free. So whoever controls the source still controls
the universe and now everyone knows where the source is.
Yes, those are spoilers for the ending. But again, you are
apparently referring to an entirely different book, because
everything else you say is not from the Sten books.

As usual, you're full of shit.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-06-26 19:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no other
form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was mostly
outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely. There is
_nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book. Expensive, but
expected to become more practical with further development and
scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2 started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual motion
machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost more energy to make
then you get out of it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-26 20:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without
access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book. Expensive,
but expected to become more practical with further development
and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2
started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost more
energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was, after
all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also discussed in
the later books, especially the last one, and it is explicitly
stated that there is an expectation that the *cost* will come down
with further refinement and up-scaling, and the characters (some of
who are very knowledgable) expect it to be a practical, if
expensive, alternative to the current source. At no point is there
*any* mention of the *energy* cost to synthesize it. (I *just*
reread the entire series. You, clearly, haven't, if you've read it
at all.)

So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-06-27 00:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without
access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book. Expensive,
but expected to become more practical with further development
and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2
started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost more
energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was, after
all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also discussed in
the later books, especially the last one, and it is explicitly
stated that there is an expectation that the *cost* will come down
with further refinement and up-scaling, and the characters (some of
who are very knowledgable) expect it to be a practical, if
expensive, alternative to the current source. At no point is there
*any* mention of the *energy* cost to synthesize it. (I *just*
reread the entire series. You, clearly, haven't, if you've read it
at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the monopoly on AM2
and they thought they could at least get parity in energy cost with the
Emperor because they were lacking vital, need to know information.

And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2 breaks the
laws of physics and allows more energy to come out of the process then
goes in I do not see how you have an argument.

In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would always be able
to under cut their price on AM2 he just did not want to lose the ability
to completely control the energy supply of the universe. Whereas if AM2
makers were perpetual motion machines the price of AM2 would rapidly
approach zero.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 01:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power
corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book.
Expensive, but expected to become more practical with further
development and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2
started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost more
energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was,
after all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also
discussed in the later books, especially the last one, and it
is explicitly stated that there is an expectation that the
*cost* will come down with further refinement and up-scaling,
and the characters (some of who are very knowledgable) expect
it to be a practical, if expensive, alternative to the current
source. At no point is there *any* mention of the *energy* cost
to synthesize it. (I *just* reread the entire series. You,
clearly, haven't, if you've read it at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the monopoly
on AM2 and they thought they could at least get parity in energy
cost with the Emperor because they were lacking vital, need to
know information.
Can you provide a page number, or even chapter number, in which any
mention of the energy cost is made? No? Full of shit. As always.
Post by Magewolf
And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2 breaks
the laws of physics and allows more energy to come out of the
process then goes in I do not see how you have an argument.
It's fiction, retard. It works the way the suthors say it works.
Post by Magewolf
In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would always
be able to under cut their price on AM2 he just did not want to
lose the ability to completely control the energy supply of the
universe. Whereas if AM2 makers were perpetual motion machines
the price of AM2 would rapidly approach zero.
Page number? No? Full of shit.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-06-27 01:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal Emperor
specifically to demonstrate the concept of power
corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
Post by Magewolf
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Post by Magewolf
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book.
Expensive, but expected to become more practical with further
development and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2
started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost more
energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was,
after all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also
discussed in the later books, especially the last one, and it
is explicitly stated that there is an expectation that the
*cost* will come down with further refinement and up-scaling,
and the characters (some of who are very knowledgable) expect
it to be a practical, if expensive, alternative to the current
source. At no point is there *any* mention of the *energy* cost
to synthesize it. (I *just* reread the entire series. You,
clearly, haven't, if you've read it at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the monopoly
on AM2 and they thought they could at least get parity in energy
cost with the Emperor because they were lacking vital, need to
know information.
Can you provide a page number, or even chapter number, in which any
mention of the energy cost is made? No? Full of shit. As always.
Post by Magewolf
And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2 breaks
the laws of physics and allows more energy to come out of the
process then goes in I do not see how you have an argument.
It's fiction, retard. It works the way the suthors say it works.
Post by Magewolf
In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would always
be able to under cut their price on AM2 he just did not want to
lose the ability to completely control the energy supply of the
universe. Whereas if AM2 makers were perpetual motion machines
the price of AM2 would rapidly approach zero.
Page number? No? Full of shit.
Start of chapter 29.

"The Empire runs on Antimatter Two," Mahoney said. "You control the
source. No one, except you, knows where that source is. Therefore--" "I
am the Emperor," the Emperor said. "AM2 makes me that. And since I am
sane, and since I am... always, I provide absolute stability to the
galaxy." "And Thoresen is thinking he can replace you," Mahoney said.
The Emperor shook his head. "No. You underestimate Thoresen. The Baron
is a subtle man. If he could successfully manufacture AM2--which, by the
way, no one, not even I, knows how to do--it would still be much more
expensive than what I provide." "
J. Clarke
2017-06-27 02:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Missed that earlier, probably because GUCS usually vents its spleen into my
killfile.

Iceland has never had democracy. They have a parliament, but it has only
had real authority for about as long as the US Congress. While it has sat
regularly for over a thousand years, for most of that time it was a rubber
stamp for the monarch.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 04:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
says...
On 6/25/2017 2:55 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 6/24/2017 6:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that
no other form of government is long term stable,
either.
Missed that earlier, probably because GUCS usually vents its
spleen into my killfile.
Iceland has never had democracy. They have a parliament, but it
has only had real authority for about as long as the US
Congress. While it has sat regularly for over a thousand years,
for most of that time it was a rubber stamp for the monarch.
Some Icelanders might agree. But some would not. You bloviating
will not change that.

And Elon Musk is still a parasite suckling on the public teat.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 04:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 6/24/2017 6:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal
Emperor specifically to demonstrate the concept of power
corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone
without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out
of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book.
Expensive, but expected to become more practical with
further development and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2 started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost
more energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was,
after all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also
discussed in the later books, especially the last one, and it
is explicitly stated that there is an expectation that the
*cost* will come down with further refinement and up-scaling,
and the characters (some of who are very knowledgable) expect
it to be a practical, if expensive, alternative to the
current source. At no point is there *any* mention of the
*energy* cost to synthesize it. (I *just* reread the entire
series. You, clearly, haven't, if you've read it at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the
monopoly on AM2 and they thought they could at least get
parity in energy cost with the Emperor because they were
lacking vital, need to know information.
Can you provide a page number, or even chapter number, in which
any mention of the energy cost is made? No? Full of shit. As
always.
Post by Magewolf
And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2
breaks the laws of physics and allows more energy to come out
of the process then goes in I do not see how you have an
argument.
It's fiction, retard. It works the way the suthors say it
works.
Post by Magewolf
In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would
always be able to under cut their price on AM2 he just did not
want to lose the ability to completely control the energy
supply of the universe. Whereas if AM2 makers were perpetual
motion machines the price of AM2 would rapidly approach zero.
Page number? No? Full of shit.
Start of chapter 29.
"The Empire runs on Antimatter Two," Mahoney said. "You control
the source. No one, except you, knows where that source is.
Therefore--" "I am the Emperor," the Emperor said. "AM2 makes me
that. And since I am sane, and since I am... always, I provide
absolute stability to the galaxy." "And Thoresen is thinking he
can replace you," Mahoney said. The Emperor shook his head. "No.
You underestimate Thoresen. The Baron is a subtle man. If he
could successfully manufacture AM2--which, by the way, no one,
not even I, knows how to do--it would still be much more
expensive than what I provide." "
I do not see the word "energy" anywhere in there. Nor do you.

You have admitted - again - that I am correct.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-06-27 05:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 6/24/2017 6:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that no
other form of government is long term stable, either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal
Emperor specifically to demonstrate the concept of power
corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book entirely.
There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest that.
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone
without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book.
Expensive, but expected to become more practical with
further development and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making AM2 started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost
more energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that was,
after all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book. It's also
discussed in the later books, especially the last one, and it
is explicitly stated that there is an expectation that the
*cost* will come down with further refinement and up-scaling,
and the characters (some of who are very knowledgable) expect
it to be a practical, if expensive, alternative to the
current source. At no point is there *any* mention of the
*energy* cost to synthesize it. (I *just* reread the entire
series. You, clearly, haven't, if you've read it at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the
monopoly on AM2 and they thought they could at least get
parity in energy cost with the Emperor because they were
lacking vital, need to know information.
Can you provide a page number, or even chapter number, in which
any mention of the energy cost is made? No? Full of shit. As
always.
Post by Magewolf
And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2
breaks the laws of physics and allows more energy to come out
of the process then goes in I do not see how you have an
argument.
It's fiction, retard. It works the way the suthors say it
works.
Post by Magewolf
In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would
always be able to under cut their price on AM2 he just did not
want to lose the ability to completely control the energy
supply of the universe. Whereas if AM2 makers were perpetual
motion machines the price of AM2 would rapidly approach zero.
Page number? No? Full of shit.
Start of chapter 29.
"The Empire runs on Antimatter Two," Mahoney said. "You control
the source. No one, except you, knows where that source is.
Therefore--" "I am the Emperor," the Emperor said. "AM2 makes me
that. And since I am sane, and since I am... always, I provide
absolute stability to the galaxy." "And Thoresen is thinking he
can replace you," Mahoney said. The Emperor shook his head. "No.
You underestimate Thoresen. The Baron is a subtle man. If he
could successfully manufacture AM2--which, by the way, no one,
not even I, knows how to do--it would still be much more
expensive than what I provide." "
I do not see the word "energy" anywhere in there. Nor do you.
You have admitted - again - that I am correct.
That's alright Terry if you are man enough to admit you were wrong far
be it from me to make a big deal about it. You don't have to keep on
apologizing to me.

Stay the course, I have faith that you will be right about something
someday.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 15:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 6/25/2017 2:55 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 6/24/2017 6:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
rg
Democracy isn't shown to be long term
stable--eventually it's likely to destroy itself.
Iceland might not agree, other than in the sense that
no other form of government is long term stable,
either.
Bunch & Cole wrote the Sten books with the Eternal
Emperor specifically to demonstrate the concept of
power corrupting.
Except power had little to do with the corrupting it was
mostly outside events driving someone insane.
You are apparently referring to a different book
entirely. There is _nothing_ in the Sten books to suggest
that.
So that Sten could set
the universe up to go into eternal war.
It is a very ominous ending, yes.
Anti-Matter Two is a energy container, everyone
without access to the
source has to make it using more energy then you get out of it
That, too, is not supported by the text of the book.
Expensive, but expected to become more practical with
further development and scaling up.
Since no one who studied the the process for making
AM2 started
dancing around shouting that they had invented a perpetual
motion machine and what we learn about AM2 it has to cost
more energy to make then you get out of it.
Again, there's nothing in the text to say that. And that
was, after all, the Great Conspiracy of the first book.
It's also discussed in the later books, especially the last
one, and it is explicitly stated that there is an
expectation that the *cost* will come down with further
refinement and up-scaling, and the characters (some of who
are very knowledgable) expect it to be a practical, if
expensive, alternative to the current source. At no point
is there *any* mention of the *energy* cost to synthesize
it. (I *just* reread the entire series. You, clearly,
haven't, if you've read it at all.)
So, again, as usual, you are full of shit.
The Great Conspiracy of the first book was to break the
monopoly on AM2 and they thought they could at least get
parity in energy cost with the Emperor because they were
lacking vital, need to know information.
Can you provide a page number, or even chapter number, in
which any mention of the energy cost is made? No? Full of
shit. As always.
Post by Magewolf
And since nothing in any of the books say that making AM2
breaks the laws of physics and allows more energy to come
out of the process then goes in I do not see how you have an
argument.
It's fiction, retard. It works the way the suthors say it
works.
Post by Magewolf
In the first book the Emperor himself says that he would
always be able to under cut their price on AM2 he just did
not want to lose the ability to completely control the
energy supply of the universe. Whereas if AM2 makers were
perpetual motion machines the price of AM2 would rapidly
approach zero.
Page number? No? Full of shit.
Start of chapter 29.
"The Empire runs on Antimatter Two," Mahoney said. "You
control the source. No one, except you, knows where that
source is. Therefore--" "I am the Emperor," the Emperor said.
"AM2 makes me that. And since I am sane, and since I am...
always, I provide absolute stability to the galaxy." "And
Thoresen is thinking he can replace you," Mahoney said. The
Emperor shook his head. "No. You underestimate Thoresen. The
Baron is a subtle man. If he could successfully manufacture
AM2--which, by the way, no one, not even I, knows how to
do--it would still be much more expensive than what I
provide." "
I do not see the word "energy" anywhere in there. Nor do you.
You have admitted - again - that I am correct.
That's alright Terry if you are man enough to admit you were
wrong far be it from me to make a big deal about it. You don't
have to keep on apologizing to me.
"I know you are, but what am I?"

Imitation, flattery, etc.
Post by Magewolf
Stay the course, I have faith that you will be right about
something someday.
So you looked and looked, and even had a grown up read the book to
you, and *still* couldn't find a single mention anywhere in the
series about how much energy it takes to manufacture AM2.

Which is what I said.

Now run along, child. The grown ups are calling each other names.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
lal_truckee
2017-06-25 17:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.
Are the City Fathers aboard Blish's New York, New York prototype Minds
or something else. They certainly do run the place, all the way to
killing of a former City Manager.
John Dallman
2017-06-25 17:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lal_truckee
Are the City Fathers aboard Blish's New York, New York prototype
Minds or something else. They certainly do run the place, all the
way to killing off a former City Manager.
The difference is more a product of the period when they were written.

The City Fathers seem to be "Good Old-Fashioned AI," of the kind that was
imagined when computers first started to become generally useful. It was
envisaged that useful general intelligence could be produced with symbol
and list processing, written by humans, using computers that were much
less powerful than those of today. The City Father don't seem to be
vastly more intelligent than humans, but they are more rational.

Banks' Minds' operation is purposely never described, except in very
general terms. They are /much/ more intelligent than humans, and not
intrinsically more rational. They definitely weren't programmed directly
by humans: they seem to have been developed over thousands of years of
AIs improving and optimising AIs.

John
Robert Bannister
2017-06-26 01:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I claim most forms of organization tend to degenerate into something once loosely described as feudalism - a hierarchy in in which those lower down trade service in return for protection from their feudal Lord (or Lady).
Much Science Fiction is in fact based on historical backgrounds - the Foundation trilogy was inspired by Gibbon's Decline and Fall - some parts pretty directly so, like Bel Riose for Belisarius. Some is warning or salesmanship - 1984 for warning, various versions of libertarianism for salesmanship. Genuinely new backgrounds?
James H. Schmitz's Telzey stories have as background the overgovernment, which appears to ride herd on governments, giving them a pretty wide range of action - which means that some environments are pretty rugged, with private wars being legally declared.
C.J.Cherryh's Mahendo'Sat in the Chanur novels have a government based around Personages - charismatic and perhaps semi-religious figures. No doubt all well and good for the Mahendo'Sat but also tricky for others, as they can't seem to shake off the habit of anointing and dealing with personages when they deal with other species, instead of dealing with properly appointed government officials. Also in that story, the Hani have a loose confederation of clans, having been given technology by the Mahendo'Sat when they were in an almost pre-technological stage of civilisation.
Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.
I think it most likely that we'll have a democracy - something that calls itself a democracy, and that is a legitimate democracy at least in the sense that its citizens are reasonably happy with whatever passes as an electoral system and don't want to try and overthrow it. Something fitting this description could still be almost unrecognisable to us, if it was based on a different culture, different ways of working, or much more advanced social science.
It is possible that we could have an Empire - rule over a collection of globally diverse but locally more uniform populations by an elite that does not identify with the vast majority of the citizens. I could imagine an Imperial professional administrator telling me that they had found out that, in the long run, the only options were Empire or uniformity produced by cultural or literal genocide. (I could also imagine not believing them, at least not without proof).
We could - not sure whether we'd like it - have government in which
every decision is made by those voters who wish to voting on line. Or, I
suppose, you could make it compulsory for every eligible voter to post a
decision.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
m***@sky.com
2017-06-26 04:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I claim most forms of organization tend to degenerate into something once loosely described as feudalism - a hierarchy in in which those lower down trade service in return for protection from their feudal Lord (or Lady).
Much Science Fiction is in fact based on historical backgrounds - the Foundation trilogy was inspired by Gibbon's Decline and Fall - some parts pretty directly so, like Bel Riose for Belisarius. Some is warning or salesmanship - 1984 for warning, various versions of libertarianism for salesmanship. Genuinely new backgrounds?
James H. Schmitz's Telzey stories have as background the overgovernment, which appears to ride herd on governments, giving them a pretty wide range of action - which means that some environments are pretty rugged, with private wars being legally declared.
C.J.Cherryh's Mahendo'Sat in the Chanur novels have a government based around Personages - charismatic and perhaps semi-religious figures. No doubt all well and good for the Mahendo'Sat but also tricky for others, as they can't seem to shake off the habit of anointing and dealing with personages when they deal with other species, instead of dealing with properly appointed government officials. Also in that story, the Hani have a loose confederation of clans, having been given technology by the Mahendo'Sat when they were in an almost pre-technological stage of civilisation.
Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.
I think it most likely that we'll have a democracy - something that calls itself a democracy, and that is a legitimate democracy at least in the sense that its citizens are reasonably happy with whatever passes as an electoral system and don't want to try and overthrow it. Something fitting this description could still be almost unrecognisable to us, if it was based on a different culture, different ways of working, or much more advanced social science.
It is possible that we could have an Empire - rule over a collection of globally diverse but locally more uniform populations by an elite that does not identify with the vast majority of the citizens. I could imagine an Imperial professional administrator telling me that they had found out that, in the long run, the only options were Empire or uniformity produced by cultural or literal genocide. (I could also imagine not believing them, at least not without proof).
We could - not sure whether we'd like it - have government in which
every decision is made by those voters who wish to voting on line. Or, I
suppose, you could make it compulsory for every eligible voter to post a
decision.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
We wouldn't like it. Representative democracy is a big improvement over direct democracy. One human reason is that most people aren't that interested in policies but are prepared to choose a person, especially to choose one person for a well-publicised post, like a President (in the UK they are trying to revive local democracy by creating powerful Mayors).

The theoretical objections about voting for everything include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discursive_dilemma.

An amusing story is https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel
Robert Bannister
2017-06-29 02:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I claim most forms of organization tend to degenerate into something once loosely described as feudalism - a hierarchy in in which those lower down trade service in return for protection from their feudal Lord (or Lady).
Much Science Fiction is in fact based on historical backgrounds - the Foundation trilogy was inspired by Gibbon's Decline and Fall - some parts pretty directly so, like Bel Riose for Belisarius. Some is warning or salesmanship - 1984 for warning, various versions of libertarianism for salesmanship. Genuinely new backgrounds?
James H. Schmitz's Telzey stories have as background the overgovernment, which appears to ride herd on governments, giving them a pretty wide range of action - which means that some environments are pretty rugged, with private wars being legally declared.
C.J.Cherryh's Mahendo'Sat in the Chanur novels have a government based around Personages - charismatic and perhaps semi-religious figures. No doubt all well and good for the Mahendo'Sat but also tricky for others, as they can't seem to shake off the habit of anointing and dealing with personages when they deal with other species, instead of dealing with properly appointed government officials. Also in that story, the Hani have a loose confederation of clans, having been given technology by the Mahendo'Sat when they were in an almost pre-technological stage of civilisation.
Government by computer has already been mentioned, but I'll just point out Iain Bank's culture series for pretty much that.
I think it most likely that we'll have a democracy - something that calls itself a democracy, and that is a legitimate democracy at least in the sense that its citizens are reasonably happy with whatever passes as an electoral system and don't want to try and overthrow it. Something fitting this description could still be almost unrecognisable to us, if it was based on a different culture, different ways of working, or much more advanced social science.
It is possible that we could have an Empire - rule over a collection of globally diverse but locally more uniform populations by an elite that does not identify with the vast majority of the citizens. I could imagine an Imperial professional administrator telling me that they had found out that, in the long run, the only options were Empire or uniformity produced by cultural or literal genocide. (I could also imagine not believing them, at least not without proof).
We could - not sure whether we'd like it - have government in which
every decision is made by those voters who wish to voting on line. Or, I
suppose, you could make it compulsory for every eligible voter to post a
decision.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
We wouldn't like it. Representative democracy is a big improvement over direct democracy. One human reason is that most people aren't that interested in policies but are prepared to choose a person, especially to choose one person for a well-publicised post, like a President (in the UK they are trying to revive local democracy by creating powerful Mayors).
The theoretical objections about voting for everything include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discursive_dilemma.
More or less what I had guessed myself, but still interesting. Something
we should watch out for as our passion for technology shows no signs of
going away, and it wouldn't be too hard to implement. Of course, the
Putin element would be a danger.
Post by m***@sky.com
An amusing story is https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel
Very silly in a very British way.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
C. E. Gee
2017-06-25 15:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I'm referring here to just the U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic. However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to participate online in a true Democracy.

NAMASTE

C.E. Gee AKA Chuck AKA the first living Solarian

http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com
J. Clarke
2017-06-25 16:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by C. E. Gee
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of government. They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government. What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
I'm referring here to just the U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic. However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to participate online in a true Democracy.
And so Kim Kardashian becomes President.

Not that she?d be likely to be worse than what we have.
David DeLaney
2017-06-27 09:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by C. E. Gee
I'm referring here to just the U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic.
A federated one.
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not. Thus a
variant on democracy, distributed or 'representative', comes quickly into
play. Nobody wants meetings where -everyone- has to be responsible for taking
all the notes, doing all the research, and working on every issue that comes
up, for example. People appoint a note-taker, refer things to committee or
to a given person who's put in charge of it, etc. Delegating is an available-
time multiplier for everyone involved.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2017-06-27 16:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
I'm referring here to just the U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic.
A federated one.
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
Post by David DeLaney
Thus a
variant on democracy, distributed or 'representative', comes quickly into
play. Nobody wants meetings where -everyone- has to be responsible for taking
all the notes, doing all the research, and working on every issue that comes
up, for example. People appoint a note-taker, refer things to committee or
to a given person who's put in charge of it, etc. Delegating is an available-
time multiplier for everyone involved.
This thread from last year covers much the same ground:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/CreativePolSF OR

https://tinyurl.com/CreativePolSF

Which gives:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.arts.sf.written/kevrob$20$20proxy$20voting$20system%7Csort:relevance/rec.arts.sf.written/v48cKlK8LpE/BTVu_QiDBAAJ

I mentioned the "representative by individual proxy" system used by
L Neil Smith's Congress in his Confederacy books. Designate who you
trust to vote for you, then follow the debate online, or go back
to binge-watching Netflix series.

Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 17:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut
back on that, and participate.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Maybe if you got some kind of personalized
code for downloadable content when you voted.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2017-06-27 17:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Kevrob
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut
back on that, and participate.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Maybe if you got some kind of personalized
code for downloadable content when you voted.
I agree with you that it is unlikely the uninterested will become
interested just by making it easier to participate. Rewarding
people who vote in a manner that blatant offends my "republican virtue."
In some constituencies, it violates the law.

I want to make lapel stickers that say:

"It's none of your damned
business if I VOTED or not!"

Kevin R

Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 18:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Kevrob
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could
cut back on that, and participate.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Maybe if you got some kind of
personalized code for downloadable content when you voted.
I agree with you that it is unlikely the uninterested will
become interested just by making it easier to participate.
I is unlikely that many of them will become interested even if you
make it mandatory.
Post by Kevrob
Rewarding people who vote in a manner that blatant offends my
"republican virtue."
I would agree it's a bad idea, probably for different reasons.
Post by Kevrob
In some constituencies, it violates the
law.
Since the entire idea would involve some very fuandamental changes
to the law, that seems like a non-issue.
Post by Kevrob
"It's none of your damned
business if I VOTED or not!"
A quick trip to Googles says custom stickers start for as low as
$25 for 500. Or you could make your own:

http://www.vistaprint.com/customizable-stickers.aspx?
couponAutoload=1&GP=06%2f27%2f2017+14%3a07%3a57&GPS=4438392756&GNF=
0

http://tinyurl.com/y8pof4a9

But it isn't *making* the stickers that's the obstacle, is it? It's
have the balls to wear it in public.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2017-06-27 20:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
I'm referring here to just the U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic.
A federated one.
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
They could, but would they?

There are many better uses of my time than posting on USENET, and yet here
I am.
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Thus a
variant on democracy, distributed or 'representative', comes quickly into
play. Nobody wants meetings where -everyone- has to be responsible for taking
all the notes, doing all the research, and working on every issue that comes
up, for example. People appoint a note-taker, refer things to committee or
to a given person who's put in charge of it, etc. Delegating is an available-
time multiplier for everyone involved.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/CreativePolSF OR
https://tinyurl.com/CreativePolSF
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.arts.sf.written/kevrob$20$20proxy$20voting$20system%7Csort:relevance/rec.arts.sf.written/v48cKlK8LpE/BTVu_QiDBAAJ
I mentioned the "representative by individual proxy" system used by
L Neil Smith's Congress in his Confederacy books. Designate who you
trust to vote for you, then follow the debate online, or go back
to binge-watching Netflix series.
Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-06-27 21:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:38:05 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 3:35:36 AM UTC-7,
U.S.A.. We currently have a Republic.
A federated one.
However, because of the Internet someday most people will
be able to participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to?
Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could
cut back on that, and participate. Is that a good idea,
though?
They could, but would they?
There are many better uses of my time than posting on USENET,
and yet here I am.
Indeed. Stupid, as always. Too stupid to snip, even.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-06-28 11:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
They could. But it would depend highly on which gave them more satisfaction and
relaxation. I'm betting "go to endless internet meetings" won't win for a lot
of folks.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Carnegie
2017-06-28 12:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
They could. But it would depend highly on which gave them more satisfaction and
relaxation. I'm betting "go to endless internet meetings" won't win for a lot
of folks.
Although, there is "gamification".
Or - there was... And no doubt you can think
of drawbacks of applying it to government...
Kevrob
2017-06-28 21:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
They could. But it would depend highly on which gave them more satisfaction and
relaxation. I'm betting "go to endless internet meetings" won't win for a lot
of folks.
Although, there is "gamification".
The process of reducing activities to watching 1930s
showgirls' legs?

English already had the latinate "ludify" though it means
mocking, as in "to make sport of."
Post by Robert Carnegie
Or - there was... And no doubt you can think
of drawbacks of applying it to government...
Government is already ludicrous. :)

Kevin R
h***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 01:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Kevrob
Post by David DeLaney
Post by C. E. Gee
However, because of the Internet someday most people will be able to
participate online in a true Democracy.
Able, yes. Willing? Mostly not. Have the extra time to? Mostly not.
If people have time to play "Candy Crush" or WoW, they could cut back
on that, and participate. Is that a good idea, though?
They could. But it would depend highly on which gave them more satisfaction and
relaxation. I'm betting "go to endless internet meetings" won't win for a lot
of folks.
Although, there is "gamification".
The process of reducing activities to watching 1930s
showgirls' legs?
English already had the latinate "ludify" though it means
mocking, as in "to make sport of."
Post by Robert Carnegie
Or - there was... And no doubt you can think
of drawbacks of applying it to government...
Government is already ludicrous. :)
Trust the corporations...
David DeLaney
2017-06-27 09:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Post by a***@gmail.com
What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
Oh. ever so many! It's true that a lot of fantasy seems to be stuck on "feudal
political structure like the good Lord instituted in Europe and Britain in the
Middle Ages:", but not all of it. For exampl, I _just_ finished Ed Greenwood's
_Death Masks_, set in the D&D Forgotten Realms setting in the (independent)
city of Waterdeep. (About 200 years after most of the setting's sourcebooks,
for some not-well-explained reason; I may have missed a book.) It is ruled by
a council of masked Lords, of which originally all were not identifiable with
any given citizen - later on the tradition of there being one Open Lord whose
identity was publicly known was added. (In the story, this is Laeral
Silverhand, one of the Chosen of the goddess Mystra.) The story's plot, such
as it is, revolves around someone systematically murdering their way through
the Hidden Lords... which implies it's someone who can find out, or knows, who
they actually -are-, to start with. Bodies fly, magic is cast, Elminster is
involved of course though not in his original body, which wore out a while
back, we get to see a good bit of the various regions of the city though
admittedly some of them are in the procfess of burning down when we do, several
factions have their own enthusiastic contribuions to the plot including a
mastermind beholder in the sewers, and basically it's a good example of
Greenwood's remember-to-breathe-while-reading plots. Dave Bob says two daggers
up!
Post by a***@gmail.com
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval
fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I
can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Depends which planet, and at which time, you refer to. The Foundation itself
was almost a librarianocracy; several pieces of Seldon's Plan dealt with
planets which had various forms of governments, and with how the Foundation
should deal with and relate to them. The Second Foundation had an interesting
form of government based, essentially, on stick-holding-to-speak-in-the-circle
("a circle has no end", duh) crossed with psionics crossed with a mathematical
bureaucracy...
Post by a***@gmail.com
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
No, you're not. Quit trying to blatantly lie to folks who know better off the
top of their heads; at BEST it makes you look quite foolish and uneducated.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Juho Julkunen
2017-06-27 11:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.

Of course, it turns out many important systems depend on part on the
quality of the people running them.
--
Juho Julkunen
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 11:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or worse.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Of course, it turns out many important systems depend on part on the
quality of the people running them.
I am partial towards a participative meritocracy. If you want good quality of people, then you can test people on general intelligence, and various functional skills. You can then put the best of them in a temporary position in government. Citizens must be required to accept government service.

I am sure that some SF work must have explored the meritocracy.

Abhinav Lal
Artist & Leader
Post by Juho Julkunen
--
Juho Julkunen
Kevrob
2017-06-29 11:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Of course, it turns out many important systems depend on part on the
quality of the people running them.
I am partial towards a participative meritocracy. If you want good quality of people, then you can test people on general intelligence, and various functional skills. You can then put the best of them in a temporary position in government. Citizens must be required to accept government service.
Bringing back the corvee? Ugghh.

People trying to "beat the draft" would tank the test.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am sure that some SF work must have explored the meritocracy.
Kevin R
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 12:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Of course, it turns out many important systems depend on part on the
quality of the people running them.
I am partial towards a participative meritocracy. If you want good quality of people, then you can test people on general intelligence, and various functional skills. You can then put the best of them in a temporary position in government. Citizens must be required to accept government service.
Bringing back the corvee? Ugghh.
People trying to "beat the draft" would tank the test.
You make a good point. The way to solve this problem, is to require everyone to serve temporarily in government for a fixed time period. Those who do best in the tests, will get the best highest paying positions.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
I am sure that some SF work must have explored the meritocracy.
Kevin R
Titus G
2017-06-29 22:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
The way to solve this problem, is to require everyone to serve temporarily in government for a fixed time period.
Minister of Defence for July will be Quadibloc.

Minister of Science for July will be Starmaker.

Poet Laureate will continue to be A Lal until someone else writes The
Hobbit.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Those who do best in the tests, will get the best highest paying positions.
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-30 03:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
Post by a***@gmail.com
The way to solve this problem, is to require everyone to serve temporarily in government for a fixed time period.
Minister of Defence for July will be Quadibloc.
Minister of Science for July will be Starmaker.
Poet Laureate will continue to be A Lal until someone else writes The
Hobbit.
Thank you. Let me quote my original poem, "The Hobbit".

There once was a hobbit
Who had a nasty habit
Of stealing things
Like magic rings
Now he's doing time in Sing Sing

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Earth is like a prison for me;
only the human imagination can se me free"
Dimensional Traveler
2017-06-29 14:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if you don't
want to get things done, why have a government at all?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Titus G
2017-06-29 22:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a
dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or
worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if you don't
want to get things done, why have a government at all?
To protect and ensure the continued growth of the great fortunes
inherited from the horrific or dastardly crimes of their holders' ancestors?
Dimensional Traveler
2017-06-29 22:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In
a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better
or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if you
don't want to get things done, why have a government at all?
To protect and ensure the continued growth of the great fortunes
inherited from the horrific or dastardly crimes of their holders' ancestors?
It would cost them less to just hire a private army to do that.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Titus G
2017-06-30 00:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In
a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better
or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if you
don't want to get things done, why have a government at all?
To protect and ensure the continued growth of the great fortunes
inherited from the horrific or dastardly crimes of their holders' ancestors?
It would cost them less to just hire a private army to do that.
With social engineering, a good propaganda system can convince people
that the army paid for by them through taxes which is killing mainly
foreigners and stealing their stuff, is actually acting in their best
interests and not just enriching their oligarchic rulers.

Eg. 1. That German family that used to run that little island west of
France but now spend most of their time being famous.
2. That loyal quisling Saudi family that did the deal with those
that shared out the Ottoman Empire.

(My cynicism reminds me of the ruthless pragmatism of Joe Abercrombie's
Glokta in his First Law series.)
Kevrob
2017-07-06 22:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a happy state
of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little opposition, for better or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if you don't
want to get things done, why have a government at all?
To keep other folks, of the goo-goo, busybody, slave-driving sort
from getting _there_ things done. "Wrestling the gun away from
the madman" is my usual formulation.

Anarchy as utopia, minarchy as a possible solution.

Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-06 23:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 10:58:52 AM UTC-4, Dimensional
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:27:38 AM UTC-4,
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:02:11 PM UTC+5:30, Juho
In article
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final
and best form of government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are
generally visibly nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is
better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the
claim with "that have been tried so far" on the end. This
is still arguable; a benevolent dictatorship has some
marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government. It's a
happy state of affairs in a terrible system.
Dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of
government. In a dictatorship, things get done with little
opposition, for better or worse.
"Getting things done" is far from the highest good.
Its the only justification for any kind of government. So if
you don't want to get things done, why have a government at
all?
To keep other folks, of the goo-goo, busybody, slave-driving
sort from getting _there_
Their
things done. "Wrestling the gun away
from the madman" is my usual formulation.
That is something that gets done. You're arguing semantics. Badly.
And losing.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 11:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best form of
government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are generally visibly
nuts in some way or other.
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with "that have
been tried so far" on the end. This is still arguable; a benevolent
dictatorship has some marked advantages over it, though of course the trouble
there is dealing with succession.
Post by a***@gmail.com
What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future, according to SF?
Oh. ever so many! It's true that a lot of fantasy seems to be stuck on "feudal
political structure like the good Lord instituted in Europe and Britain in the
Middle Ages:", but not all of it. For exampl, I _just_ finished Ed Greenwood's
_Death Masks_, set in the D&D Forgotten Realms setting in the (independent)
city of Waterdeep. (About 200 years after most of the setting's sourcebooks,
for some not-well-explained reason; I may have missed a book.) It is ruled by
a council of masked Lords, of which originally all were not identifiable with
any given citizen - later on the tradition of there being one Open Lord whose
identity was publicly known was added. (In the story, this is Laeral
Silverhand, one of the Chosen of the goddess Mystra.) The story's plot, such
as it is, revolves around someone systematically murdering their way through
the Hidden Lords... which implies it's someone who can find out, or knows, who
they actually -are-, to start with. Bodies fly, magic is cast, Elminster is
involved of course though not in his original body, which wore out a while
back, we get to see a good bit of the various regions of the city though
admittedly some of them are in the procfess of burning down when we do, several
factions have their own enthusiastic contribuions to the plot including a
mastermind beholder in the sewers, and basically it's a good example of
Greenwood's remember-to-breathe-while-reading plots. Dave Bob says two daggers
up!
Post by a***@gmail.com
I remember reading Dune, where families rule over planets, in a medieval
fashion. It has been three decades since I read the Foundation trilogy, so I
can't exactly remember what form of government they had.
Depends which planet, and at which time, you refer to. The Foundation itself
was almost a librarianocracy; several pieces of Seldon's Plan dealt with
planets which had various forms of governments, and with how the Foundation
should deal with and relate to them. The Second Foundation had an interesting
form of government based, essentially, on stick-holding-to-speak-in-the-circle
("a circle has no end", duh) crossed with psionics crossed with a mathematical
bureaucracy...
Post by a***@gmail.com
Author of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Author of the Book of the New Sun
No, you're not. Quit trying to blatantly lie to folks who know better off the
top of their heads; at BEST it makes you look quite foolish and uneducated.
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

Author of The Hobbit
Author of Dune Messiah
Post by David DeLaney
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2017-06-29 12:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbi t
Author of Dune Messiah
Nah! You are just an old troll.

see:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/Hkhe8DirdGI

From 2013!

Kevin R
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 12:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbi t
Author of Dune Messiah
Nah! You are just an old troll.
Your ignorance shows. Like most people, you resort to evil insults, when faced with your own ignorance and stupidity.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

Founder of Wall Street
Founder of World Wide Web
Post by Kevrob
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/Hkhe8DirdGI
From 2013!
Kevin R
Kevrob
2017-06-29 12:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbi t
Author of Dune Messiah
Nah! You are just an old troll.
Your ignorance shows. Like most people, you resort to evil insults, when faced with your own ignorance and stupidity.
Caught you out. Troll is as troll does.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Founder of Wall Street
Founder of World Wide Web
Yah,right!
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/Hkhe8DirdGI
From 2013!
Kevin R
Anthony Nance
2017-06-29 13:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbi t
Author of Dune Messiah
Nah! You are just an old troll.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/Hkhe8DirdGI
From 2013!
Oh, he started trolling here some time in the mid-2000s; but after
a few years or so he settled down for a good while. For whatever
the reasons, he has been more troll-ish recently.

Tony
a***@gmail.com
2017-06-29 13:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Nance
Post by Kevrob
Post by a***@gmail.com
Your ignorance shows. Most people are foolish and uneducated compared to me.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbi t
Author of Dune Messiah
Nah! You are just an old troll.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/Hkhe8DirdGI
From 2013!
Oh, he started trolling here some time in the mid-2000s; but after
a few years or so he settled down for a good while. For whatever
the reasons, he has been more troll-ish recently.
Tony
Typical ignorant, stupid, and evil human.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

Author of The Hobbit
Author of Dune Messiah
Moriarty
2017-06-29 21:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 9:34:49 PM UTC+10, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
Author of The Hobbit
Author of Dune Messiah
I asked you this last time and I never got an answer, so I'm going to ask again: why do you claim to have written DUNE MESSIAH but not DUNE?

-Moriarty
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-07-06 23:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best
form of government.
Some have. The ones who claim that, without addition, are
generally visibly nuts in some way or other.
You mean like believing that democracy is the best form of
government?
Post by David DeLaney
Post by a***@gmail.com
They claim that while democracy is imperfect, it is better
than all the
other forms of government.
I haven't seen _anyone_ claim that. I _have_ seen the claim with
"that have been tried so far" on the end.
The usual quote is "Democracy is the worst form of government,
except for all the others." Sometimes attributed to Winston
Churchill.
Post by David DeLaney
This is still
arguable; a benevolent dictatorship has some marked advantages
over it, though of course the trouble there is dealing with
succession.
The usual quote about dictatorship is that it is the most
*efficient* form of government. An enlightened dictatorship is very
good at being good. A tyrant is very good at being evil. Either
way, they're quite efficient.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mike Van Pelt
2017-06-29 00:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best
form of government. They claim that while democracy is
imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government.
What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future,
according to SF?
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the ... somewhat controversial
novel in which in order to earn the right to vote, you have to
prove that you are willing to put the good of the society ahead
of your own personal safety.

Starship Troopers, of course. (The book, not the Ve'reHeavin'
abomination.)

Not SF, but related, in "Expanded Universe" Heinlein had a number
of other options -- Solve a quadratic equation, you get to vote.
Everyone gets at least one vote, but you can earn extra votes for
various socially good things, like educational achievements,
inventions, etc. He had a number of other ideas in that essay,
which I can't recall at the moment.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost | Mike Van Pelt
always a false front for the urge to rule." | mvp at calweb.com
-- H.L. Mencken | KE6BVH
David Johnston
2017-06-29 01:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Some writers have proposed that democracy is the final and best
form of government. They claim that while democracy is
imperfect, it is better than all the other forms of government.
What forms of government are likely to evolve in the future,
according to SF?
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the ... somewhat controversial
novel in which in order to earn the right to vote, you have to
prove that you are willing to put the good of the society ahead
of your own personal safety.
That's because there's nothing especially exotic in terms of the system about a democracy with a restricted franchise.
David DeLaney
2017-07-01 10:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Not SF, but related, in "Expanded Universe" Heinlein had a number
of other options -- Solve a quadratic equation, you get to vote.
Everyone gets at least one vote, but you can earn extra votes for
various socially good things, like educational achievements,
inventions, etc. He had a number of other ideas in that essay,
which I can't recall at the moment.
And of course Niven had a version of this with "vote" replaced by "participate
in evolution".

Dave, who personally is a dead end, sorry
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Loading...