RE: [ox-en] Collective Consciousness
- From: paul.7.saunders bt.com
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:25:47 -0000
How do you define an "open" project? Does your definition work with
requiring people to work on such a project? I'm asking this because
currently
most people that are involved in free software projects are there because
they *wanted* to participate, not because they were forced. Even people
that get paid to write free software (sadly, there are less and less of
them nowadays) usually first started to write the free software, and then
got on somebody's payroll (e.g., when that somebody wanted to
ever-so-slightly
push development towards a certain direction).
An open project could be anything really. I'm Australian, and currently
live in the UK, so my view of what the government is responsible for is a
little different from those of my American colleagues. Having said that,
"open projects" could be along the lines of highway construction, livestock
culling (due to foot and mouth?), any government building project. No,
people wouldn't be required to contribute, but those that did would receive
a tax break that effectively pays them. People would also use this type of
project to get "references". For instance a current computer guru wants a
career change, and decides that he/she wants to move into the construction
industry for a while years. They go off and join a "gov project" in the
construction line, eventually they get recognised, being quite good at their
job, and the job change, in the paying world, becomes an easy task.
Similarly, it could work the other way around.
Forcing people to work on free
software projects looks to me (and again, it's just my opinion) like a step
in the wrong direction.
I agree wholeheartedly. i.e. the tax break. The idea I think should be to
encourage people to contribute without forcing them too.
Do you mean that the government beaurocracy, not only the ministers
themselves
get voted? The question then would be how such a government will be able to
carry out long-term plans, with the people executing these plans changing
and trying to please the public all the time (so they get voted again).
I thought that democracies chose representative democracy over direct
democracy (like they had in ancient athens) because the latter is too messy
once the number of citizens and number of government employees grow.
It's less messy to elect one minister, and have him or her appoint the rest
of his ministry's people.
I knew I joined this discussion for a reason. At least this way I get
forced to consider whatever it is I am thinking might be a good idea, and
others can point out the problems. I was thinking more along the lines of
people being nominated, seconded etc, and then in a kind of rolling vote the
people elect whom they think should do the job. The Ministry thing would be
a privilege because people think that you are good at what you do. But
forcing people to vote for everyone would be a reduction in the individual's
rights. I was thinking more along the lines of everyone has the opportunity
to vote for each office, but is not required to. That way everyone could
vote for the offices that most affects them. For instance, me as Joe
Average live in the city. I would have little interest in voting in the
Minister for Agriculture, but I might find that because I work in a retail
outlet, that I have a vested interest in the Ministry of Trade. As a
result, I would make my vote for a new Minister of Trade when I felt that
things were getting bad in that area. The voting system would keep a hold
of my vote until I decided to vote next time. (I know there are privacy
issues with this, but I am sure that there could be a way of maintaining
anonymity throughout. Maybe someone with more of idea about this sort of
thing could propose an example). I would however probably never consider
even casting a vote for any of the nominated Ministers for Agriculture.
This kind of reduces the complexity of the large gov/citizen point.
I hope that clarifies things a little more. The more discussion on the
topic the better as far as I am concerned. I've just read your reply to
Stefan, and hope this answers some of those points as well. If I missed
something out, I am sure that someone will tell me.
Regards,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Nadav Har'El [nyh math.technion.ac.il]
Sent: 13 December 2001 22:57
To: list-en oekonux.org
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Collective Consciousness
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001, paul.7.saunders bt.com wrote about "RE: [ox-en]
Collective Consciousness":
For the last couple of years I have been giving consideration to an open
government. The kind of system that would be one step above a democracy.
All sorts of ideas have popped through my head like making the working
week
shorter and requiring everyone to contribute to an open project. The
How do you define an "open" project? Does your definition work with
requiring people to work on such a project? I'm asking this because
currently
most people that are involved in free software projects are there because
they *wanted* to participate, not because they were forced. Even people
that get paid to write free software (sadly, there are less and less of
them nowadays) usually first started to write the free software, and then
got on somebody's payroll (e.g., when that somebody wanted to
ever-so-slightly
push development towards a certain direction).
As I see it (and please don't flame me, I'm no political scientist) one of
the things that went wrong with Communism was that the Equality-Liberty
balance was tipped too much to the Equality side, and too little personal
liberty, like choosing your job, remained. Forcing people to work on free
software projects looks to me (and again, it's just my opinion) like a step
in the wrong direction.
government could run pseudo normally, but consist heavily of people
working
on government open projects. The government itself would be constantly in
ebb and flow with the people best suited to the Ministry of ???? being
appointed and reappointed via yearly web votes (conducted in a secure way
of
course).
Do you mean that the government beaurocracy, not only the ministers
themselves
get voted? The question then would be how such a government will be able to
carry out long-term plans, with the people executing these plans changing
and trying to please the public all the time (so they get voted again).
I thought that democracies chose representative democracy over direct
democracy (like they had in ancient athens) because the latter is too messy
once the number of citizens and number of government employees grow.
It's less messy to elect one minister, and have him or her appoint the rest
of his ministry's people.
--
Nadav Har'El | Friday, Dec 14 2001, 29 Kislev
5762
nyh math.technion.ac.il
|-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |If Barbie is so popular, why do you
have
http://nadav.harel.org.il |to buy her friends?
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/