[EM] language/framing quibble

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Afternoon, Kristofer
> 
> re: "... you say that you think they can [be of sufficiently
>      high quality ... and ... breadth].  I'm not so sure ..."
> 
> We live in an era so dominated by deceit and corruption it's easy to 
> miss the fact that those characteristics are not typical of the people 
> as a whole.  They are the putrid effluence of our political system.  We 
> (in the United States) endure a political process where hundreds of 
> millions of dollars are used to buy elections.  Those who supply the 
> funds, and those whose favor they buy, have given us the financial 
> cataclysm that engulfs us. Such horrors, and they seem neverending, are 
> the direct result of a political system that puts a premium on lack of 
> integrity.
> 
> It is a mistake to imagine the people we elect ... or those to whom they 
> grant ascendancy over our society ... are good examples of the human 
> spirit.  They're not.  We should not judge our society by its dregs.
> 
> The vast majority of humans are decent, honorable, law-abiding people. 
> They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise.

Your point is a good one, and understood. I'd like to say this, however: 
the process we're describing is an exponential one. That's where it 
gains its power, but that also means that the views a candidate has to 
integrate rises very quickly. Thus it may not only be corruption that 
limits the representation, but simple ability, and then I think having 
some minority representation will help balance that out. If you're 
selected, it'll be easier to integrate views close to your own than 
those far off, so let others handle those that are too far off.

> When we give our society the means and opportunity to select the best 
> among ourselves as our representatives, we will not fail to do so.  This 
> may be most clearly understood by considering the human dynamics of 
> method we've been discussing:
> 
> Because the process is repetitive, we can anticipate that the people who 
> advance will be people who want to advance.  That may seem obvious, but 
> we should not miss its significance.  It means, as the levels advance, 
> the self-interest of the participants is integrated into their 
> advancement.  Yet, as much as each person seeks advancement, their only 
> role is to select one of the other two people they're grouped with.
> 
> When three individuals are given serious contemporary issues to consider 
> and three or four weeks of close personal contact with two other people 
> who may be called upon to resolve those issues, how will they evaluate 
> each other and, at the same time, project themselves?  What must they do 
> to encourage the other two people to decide they are the best choice?
> 
> There is only thing they can do:  They must demonstrate, by their words, 
> by their opinions, and by their conduct that they are exemplary people.
> 
> Concomitantly, as they focus on and project their own commendable 
> qualities, they will be acutely aware of the presence or absence of 
> those qualities in others.  I believe the human dynamics of such an 
> arrangement are compelling.  I am reminded of Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre's 
> assertion that "... everyone must be allowed to have access to the 
> political decision-making process" to experience the internal goods that 
> enrich society and benefit the community.
> 
> To cite something I wrote some time ago:
> 
>   "My own view is that society and the individuals that compose
>    it are a single dynamic entity.  When the individuals in the
>    society are able to elevate those with the moral qualities
>    they desire to positions of leadership, the process will
>    improve the moral qualities of the entire society.  People
>    will continue to pursue their own interest but will do so
>    within a framework of acceptable actions which (1) have been
>    jointly defined and (2) adjust to external circumstances that
>    affect the society."

I agree; an improvement in the condition of society is an improvement to 
all those who are involved in it. This is not so hard to see if you go 
at it from another angle: civilization and the rule of law provides for 
a boundary that keeps society from degrading into a chaotic sea of gang 
warfare, and the people benefit even if they don't direct those laws 
themselves.

> The difference in our perspectives may lay in, on the one hand, a focus 
> on the quality of the people we elect to represent us, and on the other, 
> the survival of the ideas that counterbalance the oppression of 
> two-party systems.  The difficulty of accomplishing the former, combined 
> with the events of the past century and a half, may make the latter seem 
> the more imperative.

Another cause, I think, is that I try to cover the possible errors with 
methods or rules. You say that the people can obviate the flaws by 
simply being very good at what they do, but I say that maybe not; maybe 
the demands become greater more quickly than they can become better, or 
maybe simple quantization error compounds too quickly, and if we rely on 
people alone, the system may err greatly, but if we rely on method 
tweaks, there'll be something to buoy it up even if it fails otherwise.

If I am too cautious, that will only end up reducing the efficiency of 
the system. But if I'm not, it'll keep the system from deteriorating.