Life In 19x19

Wow. The first two pages of that are enough for 50 rounds of buzzword bingo.

Aphelion wrote:

Oroth wrote:Well, under democracy there is no corruption, and cities cannot be incited to revolt, but the senate makes it much harder to go to war. Under monarchy you can declare war on who you please and the military can be used to occupy cities to prevent civil disorder. However the inherent corruption means a large empire will just fall apart, so in general I prefer democracy. My overall favourite form of government is one based on religious fundamentalism, because everyone is happy.

Religious fundamentalism is proven to be the best follow up to democracy, once you obtain a tech advantage.

It has been a long time, but I think I preferred communism over democracy. But that might just have been due to lack of knowledge. But communism sounds awesome if like being at war.

@kokomi
Why do you think so? It's a simple fact.

kokomi wrote:

Oroth wrote:Well, under democracy there is no corruption

Is this a joke?

Li Kao wrote:@kokomi
Why do you think so? It's a simple fact.

"Why do you think so?" is an excellent question, the answer to which we can probably learn from. "It's a simple fact" is a statement that is dangerous in the context of a thread like this. In the arena of political discussion, when one person claims "a simple fact" (I see it occasionally in letters to the editor and in opinion columns), it usually is in reference to something that is nearly impossible to assert as factual, and is often based largely on a belief system.

I was going to respond to Oroth's claim, also, but hesitate to get into this discussion at all. But here I am. So, let's go with the (debatable) assertion that the United States is a democracy. In its history are a number of examples of corruption. We can look at the past "machine politics" of Chicago as an example. There are a number of other episodes in history that demonstrate corruption (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome). In my own opinion, one could say that our legislative system, while intended to be fairly democratic, is corrupted by moneyed influence.

So, in questions such as these, there are no "simple facts". The world tends to be much more complex than that.

Harleqin wrote:Wow. The first two pages of that are enough for 50 rounds of buzzword bingo.

Here's a translation of the Executive Summary (http://holacracy.org/resources/organization-evolved) into more common usage:

Over the past 20 years or so, a bunch of people have talked about what we need to do to enjoy life in the 21st century. These people think the usual way of doing things won't work and are suggesting something new - the only question is, can we do it? But, we all know from experience that it's hard to change things if we just keep doing the same thing over and over again. If we want this new thing to work, we need to change the usual ways of doing things.

Holacracy is great and will do everything for us because all our great ideas can be shared without splitting us up into scattered groups doing different things. Holacracy lets those of us who have great, new ideas make the rules for how we should go about doing things and when we do these new things life will be much better because we'll finally be able to do everything we wanted to do.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Folks, please read the guidelines at http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... f=5&t=1006, in particular the part about no political threads.

Thanks
JB, Admin

If the question of democracy vs. monarchy is a political topic in the modern world, we are in big trouble.

I find it a bit strange that it does not seem to be common sense that the best system is Democracy. Probably most of the people DO live in a democratic system and have the luxury to think that something else might even be better.

SpongeBob wrote:Probably most of the people DO live in a democratic system and have the luxury to think that something else might even be better.

Depends on your definition of democracy. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is a federal constitutional republic. I'm not sure if there are any truly democratic (in the original Greek direct democracy sense) in the world.

SpongeBob wrote:I find it a bit strange that it does not seem to be common sense that the best system is Democracy. Probably most of the people DO live in a democratic system and have the luxury to think that something else might even be better.

Dictatorial statement(opposited to democratic)

I prefer a combination of both. But I do not want to mix religions into politics issues. "Separation of state and church" is a good idea.

Anyway, I prefer this world shows its varaities.

Some good laughs to be had here, I especially like Bill's post.

On a serious note, American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama feels that liberal democracies represent the end of history (cue gocat's observation that the US does not seem to be a liberal democracy), which I think is a pretty understandable perspective. Someone else has already made this observation, that a big property of democracy is its inertia. Also of note, liberal democracies typically don't declare war on liberal democracies.

Personally, I share many opinions with http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ - there should be extensive scientific research on optimal ways to run countries (and on a sidenote, institutions - like universities). It sounds like this is the ideal of holacracy, but I haven`t seen the literature yet. Science is our best and, kind of definitively, only way of finding answers.

My natural (actually deeply pondered) feeling is against democracies, and yes, I live in one (and a reasonably good one, as they go). Trusting /every/ decision to mob wisdom seems irresponsible to me. Having started with Francis Fukuyama, I'm going to finish with one who's citation I have forgotten, but I like the direction of;

"A government that lets itself be led by the nose by public opinion is irresponsible."

Loons wrote: My natural (actually deeply pondered) feeling is against democracies, and yes, I live in one (and a reasonably good one, as they go). Trusting /every/ decision to mob wisdom seems irresponsible to me. Having started with Francis Fukuyama, I'm going to finish with one who's citation I have forgotten, but I like the direction of;

"A government that lets itself be led by the nose by public opinion is irresponsible."

I recommend to you Machiavelli's Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, in particular Book One (of three). Machiavelli had direct, personal experience with both monarchies and republics, and he read deeply of the history of Ancient Rome and Greece. Ultimately he comes down in favor of republics in just about every regard. They are more stable, they are better at sustaining and expanding a country's power, they are more likely to keep alliances, they encourage their citizens to succeed and can reward them when they do so, etc. He is hardly a dreamy romantic about republics, but he is very wary of absolute monarchs.

Machiavelli's definition of a republic includes elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; modern constitutionns (e.g., the United States Constitution) also combines these elements to prevent "mob rule."

deja wrote:

Harleqin wrote:Wow. The first two pages of that are enough for 50 rounds of buzzword bingo.

Here's a translation of the Executive Summary (http://holacracy.org/resources/organization-evolved) into more common usage:

Over the past 20 years or so, a bunch of people have talked about what we need to do to enjoy life in the 21st century. These people think the usual way of doing things won't work and are suggesting something new - the only question is, can we do it? But, we all know from experience that it's hard to change things if we just keep doing the same thing over and over again. If we want this new thing to work, we need to change the usual ways of doing things.

Holacracy is great and will do everything for us because all our great ideas can be shared without splitting us up into scattered groups doing different things. Holacracy lets those of us who have great, new ideas make the rules for how we should go about doing things and when we do these new things life will be much better because we'll finally be able to do everything we wanted to do.

Interesting

You first paragraph is on the mark!

The second paragraph may be a surface impression, but you are phrasing it as elitism and nirvana which misses the point.

Holacracy provides a new underlying structure and decision making tools that balances and integrates diverse views, allowing everyone to participate (more importantly the appropriate people at a particular scope) in how we should go about doing things and improving our lives. There are no prescribed answers in Holacracy and no promised nirvana, but a new way of looking at reality to find the answers to move forward in a positive direction.

An analogy: A hammer is a tool to drive nails. With it you can build houses. The hammer does not tell you what house to build, it just enables you to build one. Is a sense, Holacracy is a tool for building organizations, it does not tell you what organization to build, it just provides a better way to build the organization; just as the hammer is a better way to drive nails than a stick or your fist.

Every new way is laughed at in the beginning. A the beginning of Democracy, imagine the nobles comments about the idea of letting their serfs vote on how the kingdom should be run.

Democracy has been a wonderful innovation and brought us to amazing level of living, but we all see some problems with it. Is it not time to refine it and improve once more? If we just sit on our laurels, some new idea will pass us by. We see it all the time in every venue.

Vitality comes with constantly reinventing ourselves. What is emerging now are tools (Holacracy is one example) to institutionalize this constant reinvention, as opposed to previous models that tend to stagnate and create bureaucracies.

mdobbins wrote:

deja wrote:

Harleqin wrote:Wow. The first two pages of that are enough for 50 rounds of buzzword bingo.

Here's a translation of the Executive Summary (http://holacracy.org/resources/organization-evolved) into more common usage:

Over the past 20 years or so, a bunch of people have talked about what we need to do to enjoy life in the 21st century. These people think the usual way of doing things won't work and are suggesting something new - the only question is, can we do it? But, we all know from experience that it's hard to change things if we just keep doing the same thing over and over again. If we want this new thing to work, we need to change the usual ways of doing things.

Holacracy is great and will do everything for us because all our great ideas can be shared without splitting us up into scattered groups doing different things. Holacracy lets those of us who have great, new ideas make the rules for how we should go about doing things and when we do these new things life will be much better because we'll finally be able to do everything we wanted to do.

Interesting

You first paragraph is on the mark!

The second paragraph may be a surface impression, but you are phrasing it as elitism and nirvana which misses the point.

Holacracy provides a new underlying structure and decision making tools that balances and integrates diverse views, allowing everyone to participate (more importantly the appropriate people at a particular scope) in how we should go about doing things and improving our lives. There are no prescribed answers in Holacracy and no promised nirvana, but a new way of looking at reality to find the answers to move forward in a positive direction.

An analogy: A hammer is a tool to drive nails. With it you can build houses. The hammer does not tell you what house to build, it just enables you to build one. Is a sense, Holacracy is a tool for building organizations, it does not tell you what organization to build, it just provides a better way to build the organization; just as the hammer is a better way to drive nails than a stick or your fist.

Every new way is laughed at in the beginning. A the beginning of Democracy, imagine the nobles comments about the idea of letting their serfs vote on how the kingdom should be run.

Democracy has been a wonderful innovation and brought us to amazing level of living, but we all see some problems with it. Is it not time to refine it and improve once more? If we just sit on our laurels, some new idea will pass us by. We see it all the time in every venue.

Vitality comes with constantly reinventing ourselves. What is emerging now are tools (Holacracy is one example) to institutionalize this constant reinvention, as opposed to previous models that tend to stagnate and create bureaucracies.

It's not the ideas that are at issue but their presentation. When people use jargon in such a thick fashion, they often want to hide something. In this case, the ideas being presented are not all that new and very simple to grasp. The executive summary as well as yours (which is much better) really isn't saying much. Simply put:

Holacracy is this new idea that allows everyone to participate, when appropriate, in order to improve our lives now and in the future...

When you include – "appropriate people at a particular scope" – into your formulation you've just invoked elitism, which is necessary in my book. For example, I rely on physicians and mechanics for services in which I have little expertise. When it comes to fixing my body or my car, they're the ones making and executing the rules not me.

In my line of work, jargon is used in epidemic proportions. Everyone is trying to say something new when they really have nothing new to say. As far as institutionalizing change, which is what you're talking about, again nothing new here. It's sort of like trying to contain the 'flow' in the flow of water.

I know this comes off as very grumpy and cynical but it's not intended that way. There are some new and exciting ideas and some not-so-new but exciting ideas out there, and Holacracy may be one of the them. They just don't need to be dressed up in such cumbersome language.

Ok, so how much jargon did I end up using here?

Helel wrote:

deja wrote: I rely on physicians and mechanics for services in which I have little expertise. When it comes to fixing my body or my car, they're the ones making and executing the rules not me.

So when your doctor puts you in line for euthanasia you just smile and trust his/her expertise.

So when you need surgery do you perform it yourself?

Helel wrote:

deja wrote:So when you need surgery do you perform it yourself?

I like knives.

Of course, the avatar...but how do you manage the anesthetic?