The new Technocrats behind our Salvation, it seems.

No matter how many people you get killed, Mitsu, it never reflects on your hands because you can always say you had the best of intentions, that these plans on Health Failure at the VA and in American hospitals, were the result of “incomplete planning”.

There just weren’t enough “tinkerers” with you self imposed righteousness, Mitsu. Or perhaps the issue was there were tinkerers to begin with, those who did not understand what level they were playing at. Human beings are not software codes, and evil isn’t some bug you can debug.

OT, More revelations inre Benghazigate.

The Pink House cover story is melting like a witch in water.

Like most people I’ve been involved in helping to shape a lot of organizations, from my businesses to community organizations, to a martial arts group I was a part of, and so on. I’d say the thing I am the proudest of in terms of systems thinking was the way I and many friends of mine in the early days of the tech industry spent a lot of time thinking about how to build work environments that were different from the stodgy corporate models that has come before — flat management, network communication structures, give equity to employees, flex work hours and vacation policy, and on and on. I didn’t single-handedly create the tech culture, but I participated pretty heavily in thinking about these issues, talking about it with friends, and implementing it in my own companies. And it has worked very well indeed, producing one of the most productive and innovative sectors of the American economy. Many of the ideas I and my friends pushed ended up becoming fairly standard in the tech industry across the board.

There’s no point having thoughts about it if you can’t create it into reality. Computer models are insufficient though.

I think your proposal that policies be tested in small-scale social laboratories has some merit. But I disagree that all such experiments should require consensus of every single person involved. Should we require consensus for, say, every traffic law on the books and only “test” traffic laws, one at a time, on small communities where everyone in the village agrees to the experiment? And if one person objects, you can’t even try that? This just seems excessive.

The escape valve for ill-conceived experiments is you can vote the folks out at the next election. There should be clear parameters — that’s what the constitution and bill of rights is for — and limits on what laws can be tried out. But many experiments (like the Urban Growth Boundary) would never have been able to be carried out without trying them on a larger scale first. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work — scrap it and try something else.

Whether you are or aren’t, I can’t determine. However, I question whether anyone with a grasp of systems architecture would support Obama. Either they don’t agree with the system architecture of chaos theory, or their will is being controlled by Obama propaganda. Either way, it’s not a reliable foundation to start with.

While many of the things I’ve communicated to you or about you seem like jokes to you, they are serious from our perspective. I’m not here to change the Obama doctrine, the world, its people, or various “opinions”.

Leftists must prove to me that they have human free will and know how to use it. That’s a personal standard, not something connected to knowledge about policy or power over bureaucrats.

That’s because people arguing here must demonstrate that they are exercising their free will, and not merely being the messenger automatons of the Regime. Because if the Regime is merely passing down its policies here, we would be better suited to arguing with them directly, not with the messengers. No matter what a person’s personal beliefs are, my standard stays the same.

Horowitz and others have demonstrated that they have at least attempted to re-condition and de-program themselves. What they say or do thus have the implication that it is of their own free will. That matters because system review cannot be conducted if the system is being manipulated by external or internal unknowns.

But where we differ is that you think ANY architectural tinkering with the rules that govern the evolution of the system is inherently the same level of “central planning”, and I disagree with that and I believe empirical evidence is against that hypothesis.

My concerns can be spelled out via this post concerning the Left’s organization and foundation premises.

http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-leftist-alliance-deconstruct-in-detail/

The executive summary would read something like this:

The Leftist alliance is the first and perhaps only problem. They cannot be reformed so must be demolished, destroyed, and replaced. So long as they have the power to manipulate or order American policy, no solutions will ever be produced no matter what people attempt to do.

Most of the Republican or Democrat policy solutions are invalid from a systems architecture point of view because it’s impossible to model or isolate the control variables given the alteration was made to a reality based system at the top, not at the bottom. It’s impossible to determine what went well or wrong when dealing with even a city of 1 million people. They must activate the system in a closed box, sanitized of unknown variables.

For example, creating a psychology service based charity project between Neo Neocon and various volunteers and funding at this blog would be an example of generating a reality based simulation of certain charity policies from the ground up. Because it starts with 10 people, microscopic in scale compared to the macroscopic 1 million people found in most districts or cities.

The variables can be isolated with 10 people or 100 people. Talking about politicians you have never met, inflicting and enforcing policies on people you don’t even know the names of, does not produce scientific or philosophical truth.

But where we differ is that you think ANY architectural tinkering with the rules that govern the evolution of the system is inherently the same level of “central planning”, and I disagree with that and I believe empirical evidence is against that hypothesis.

While I agree that the best outcome comes from leveraging self-organization, I don’t agree that human beings cannot tinker with the high-level rules to bias the system in ways that work better than just letting the system “run” with some set of completely minimal rules.

A good example might be the urban growth boundary in the state of Oregon. A moderate Republican governor, Tom McCall, put this in place, ostensibly to protect farmland and nature, but the effect was interesting — by preventing urban zoning from expanding indefinitely, it forced developers to look for underutilized real estate in the city center. The net result was that instead of sprawling endless suburbs, Portland had a renaissance of development which revitalized its decaying urban center, and revitalizing the neighborhoods in the central city. Now, Portland is considered one of the most livable cities its size in the United States, and the urban growth boundary is wildly popular.

It wasn’t central planning in a micromanagement sense: city planners didn’t dictate which businesses went where. It was a large-scale rule change which had lots of positive side effects, some of which were unexpected, but ultimately how things evolved was largely a matter of individuals making choice, but choices within a slightly altered rule system.

I am opposed to micromanaging regulations, but rather in favor of large-scale architectural changes that leverage market forces.

The true mark of systems creation is to simulate it, either create it full scale and make it work, or creating a smaller scale system that operates the same but at a lower level of productivity.

Unlike polls designed to influence public opinion, this would become a real scientific project, utilizing more than 10,000 humans operating as both consumers and producers. The system that results is the optimal system. Not somebody else’s “idea” of what an optimum system should look like.

Reality is the finest quantum and dna computer in existence for testing models and simulations. Human brains are not.