Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: What will be some new jobs of the future?

  1. Top | #61
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    4,033
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,783
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    It could be something made more specialized. And then those randomly selected would do it full-time and do more preparation than a current jury member does.
    So instead of a legislative assembly comprised of elected representatives, we would have a legislative assembly comprised of randomly selected people who aren't accountable for the decisions they make, and about half of whom are probably below average in terms of education and intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    But how is it that the only ones competent to perform this function have to be charismatic speech-maker demagogues? What is it you like about politicians whose main talent is to manipulate a mob of idiots with their speeches? Why do you want to make that talent to manipulate a requirement to be a decision-maker?
    I like the fact that I get to vote for my representatives in parliament, and as a result, my representative is accountable to their electorate/state. They have something to lose if they do a bad job.

    Your alternative is to randomly select those lawmakers from "a mob of idiots" who are accountable to no-one and stand to lose nothing by doing a bad job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Where is the evidence that these pundits are more knowledgeable in science, technology, economics, history, etc.? They're never tested. It's easy for a good speech-maker to bullshit his way, yet having his head up his ass even worse than the average citizen who lacks the talent to fake it.
    The people I personally vote for are certainly more knowledgeable in those subjects than the average citizen. On top of that, they've also spent a long time learning how government institutions work, how to build a consensus with people who have conflicting agendas, and they are willing to arrange their lifestyle around the extraordinary work commitments that come with the job.

  2. Top | #62
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,705
    Rep Power
    24

    How do we know the Professionals perform better? How are they being tested?

    Where's the verification that the "expert" performs better than a layman would?


    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You are clearly confused about the roles of legislators and jury members. Legislators are elected to office and they write and modify laws.
    And they do a rotten job of it. We have no evidence that these elected demagogues are proficient at performing this function. You have to set aside your emotional attachment to pundits and leaders and examine their performance.


    Juries serve on trials as arbiters of the facts; they do not make or interpret the law, but are instructed in the law by the trial judge.
    Grand juries sometimes do much more than that. Juries can be designed to perform whatever function we want them for.


    Two very different functions.
    Not always. There are different kinds of juries. Sometimes they are given much greater responsibility than only rendering verdicts in trials. And they could also be given a function in shaping laws. You have no evidence that their performance would be worse than that of the speech-maker demagogues doing it now, and screwing it up. It would be an improvement if a good process is created to put them into that role.


    Judges and lawyers are trained in the law, while most lay people are not.
    Lay people could be trained in it, as needed, without it requiring 10 years to become initiated. There'd be nothing wrong with a process which would train them for a few months, or however long needed.


    Lawyers and judges serve a vital role in the legal system, and their roles cannot simply be taken over by lay people who lack knowledge of the law.
    Many times they can be. It's mostly their status, and the aura of their office which distinguishes them, not their knowledge. In some cases we need a specialist/expert involved, but usually not the one(s) who make the final decision. This could come from ordinary people with help from specialists when needed.

    Anyone ultimately can be replaced when they become too costly, and when they are too scarce. Resolving a case might be better done by non-professionals in preference to having the litigants wait years before getting a resolution. There are many appeal cases which could be resolved easily, yet they have to wait years because of the backlog.


    You would not expect a lay person to successfully carry out surgical procedures, build power stations and bridges, or even prepare tax returns for a large organization. But somehow these requirements for education and experience doesn't apply to judges and lawyers?
    Not as much. They are not in the same category as surgeons and engineers who must be tested and can confirm their knowledge by producing practical results with their skill. With judges and lawyers it's much more subjective. There is no way to test them to know a good judge from a bad judge, or a good lawyer from a bad lawyer, based on the tangible results they produce.

    And why do we need highly specialized experts to judge cases of someone appealing a false arrest, who has to wait a year or longer in jail. And in many cases it was something simple which could be resolved easily without a law degree. How bad would it have to get? Would you make them wait 5 years?

    There are thousands of horror stories of appeals held up because of the backlogs.


    Are you on high on drugs?
    No, it's an ego trip I'm on. Which is actually worse, but don't worry -- I'm confined to a special-care unit where I pose no threat to myself or others.

    But thanks for your concern.

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,705
    Rep Power
    24

    The jury system mostly works and should be experimented with to replace professionals.

    Quote Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
    They may not make or interpret the law, but they can do something called "jury nullification." That is the defendant is guilty, the evidence is very clear on that, but the jury finds the defendant not guilty.
    Or a grand jury refuses to indict, which is an even stronger example of the professionals being rebuked, because it's saying this case is so bad that we won't even allow it to be tried.

    An example of this is the case of a hospital in Louisiana hit by Hurricane Katrina, after which a doctor and 2 nurses were charged with 2nd-degree murder for euthanizing some patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memori...ricane_Katrina -- Under the law there was a strong case, but the grand jury refused to indict (probably the right outcome).

    False acquittal?

    But what about the occasional bad outcome where a bad person is set free by a jury under local pressure and corruption and a culture of prejudice, plus the presumption-of-innocence and double jeopardy protection? Maybe this cannot be fixed. HOWEVER --

    With citizen-panel decision-making bodies given wider functions than are done now, a process could be created to REVIEW past miscarriage-of-justice cases, even if the verdict cannot be overturned. Rather, the new investigation and review could make the determination of what really happened and issue findings that a verdict was wrong and the defendant was really guilty. Even though it could not then be used to change the sentence, still it would have an impact and give vindication to those who were wronged by the false acquittal.


    It can also go the other way too. The person is not guilty but the jury find the defendant guilty anyway.
    That's a good reason why we need to do better with the appeals process, so falsely-convicted prisoners would not have to wait years before their case is heard. This includes also 2nd and 3rd appeals, when sometimes the first appeal went wrong.

    But if there could be citizen-appeal panels to hear cases, similar to juries, chosen randomly from the citizenry, many falsely-convicted prisoners could get justice much sooner. But no, we have to leave it to the professionals only, so those appealing their cases have to wait years.

    Also there could be review of past death-penalty cases to clear the name of someone falsely convicted and executed. A legitimate purpose is served by reviewing such cases.


    Remember if you ever get selected for a jury you are not answerable for your decision.
    It's a debatable point whether some accountability might be appropriate. That could be experimented with.

    But even if not, that problem is mostly fixed by the fact that a UNANIMOUS decision must be reached (or near unanimous) in order for the verdict to be official.

    So, any decision-making bodies comprised of ordinary citizens randomly chosen have to be large enough, like 6 or more, so that the occasional bad member is canceled out. A very small body of only 3 might be dangerous. With so many countries and states and provinces and local jurisdictions, there's plenty of latitude for experimentation to see what works best.

    Off hand it seems like bodies of at least 5 or 6, and larger, required to reach a unanimous decision, ought to produce some good results, equal to and better than the present legislatures made up of the elected politician-speechmaker pundits, and likewise for many of the judicial functions now done by expensive politically-appointed judges.
    Last edited by Lumpenproletariat; 06-30-2020 at 09:46 AM.

  4. Top | #64
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,705
    Rep Power
    24

    Elitist elected politicians vs. average citizens (randomly-selected) as decision-makers

    Elitist pundits giving speeches vs. ordinary citizens arguing in dialogue


    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    So instead of a legislative assembly comprised of elected representatives, we would have a legislative assembly comprised of randomly selected people . . .
    Something like that, but maybe not "a legislative assembly" per se -- rather, many small bodies, or councils, each performing a more specialized function than the current broad legislature which tries to manage all the issues.

    It's not that the new system would be the same as before but with only a replacement of the previous legislator-politicians with randomly-selected persons, replacing the current elections by a random selection process to put ordinary citizens in those same positions formerly held by the elected politicians. Not necessarily a simple replacement of one kind of decision-maker with another kind who would do the same as before. There would be many differences in the system to make the new decision-making bodies perform better.

    There are different possible versions of how it would work, and so there's a need to experiment with this in different forms to find what works best.

    . . . comprised of randomly selected people who aren't accountable for the decisions they make, . . .
    Legislators now are not accountable for their decisions, except in the sense that they must get re-elected. But this only means they must continue to serve certain special interests who pay them for special favors, and also that they please the particular political party they belong to. There is nothing to verify that their actions or decisions produced any beneficial result for society, for the voters generally. All they must do is win favor from certain partisans and financial supporters, most of whom want special benefits for their group at the expense of everyone else.

    Their only connection to the voters or general public is the speeches they deliver, and performing well at delivering speeches is the only accountability, so that they score higher if they are more talented at performing their speeches. It has nothing to do with measuring their performance in decision-making, or judging the results they produced by their decisions. The voters have no way to determine if their decisions produced good or bad results for them.

    . . . the decisions they make, and about half of whom are probably below average in terms of education and intelligence.
    No, more than half would be above average, because participation would be voluntary, and those above average in education and intelligence would be more motivated to make the choice to participate in such an activity.

    There's little evidence that current elected politicians are above average in education and intelligence, except in the sense that

    • many of them have a degree in something (usually law), which doesn't mean much any more, as a college degree is becoming more and more a status symbol only (except in something like the natural sciences, engineering, etc. (which are testable)), and we're approaching the point where most graduates are just as incapable of passing a real test of their knowledge as the average non-college-grad is;

    and in the sense that

    • they gain knowledge of certain issues, of course, over many years of being re-elected, in the debates and speeches in the chamber, and in campaigning, but such information or knowledge would also be acquired by the randomly-selected citizen decision-makers, as those issues are put to them to deliberate on, and they would become experts on the particular subject matter, just as jurors in a criminal trial become experts on the facts of the case they are hearing;

    and in the sense that

    • they are good at giving speeches to win votes from the populace, or the ability to impress and dominate listeners who have to listen to them as a passive audience, but this only indicates their talent at manipulating the crowd, and is not a measure of their knowledge and intelligence, as charismatic ability is not based on education and intelligence, but in most cases on an innate ability to speak well and manipulate their listerners, or in some cases on much practice and training to develop that one skill .

    These talents or assets of the elected politicians, such as they are, give no indication of their ability to think clearly and intelligently and reach thoughtful conclusions. At best, they indicate an ability to communicate effectively, but this is easily abused toward the goal of dominating and gaining approval and submission to their will, rather than that of producing net benefit for the community.

    In theory, it might be OK to create a system run by those who truly can be tested and can prove they are more knowledgeable and educated. However, that's obviously not what we now have. And probably better is a system allowing everyone to participate, but one where superior knowledge and education would play a critical role, so the process would promote more learning by everyone, including some who are below average but want to learn, while those who disdain learning would choose not to participate.


    But how is it that the only ones competent to perform this function have to be charismatic speech-maker demagogues? What is it you like about politicians whose main talent is to manipulate a mob of idiots with their speeches? Why do you want to make that talent to manipulate a requirement to be a decision-maker?
    I like the fact that I get to vote for my representatives in parliament, and as a result, my representative is accountable . . .
    That's only theory. Usually you have 2 choices (some elections maybe 3 or 4), and these are dictated to you by a system which is designed already to give you a very limited range of personality types -- they must have close ties to privileged and wealthy and powerful interests, not average persons struggling to survive. From the outset a good 70 or 80 or 90% of the population is excluded from any participation in this class of elitists, so that most of the choosing has already been done for you long before you have any chance to make any choice of your own.

    Any feeling you have that any of them would be "accountable" to you is only a feel-good illusion which gives you good vibes. Even with the limited choice you're offered, you have almost no way to determine really which candidate is going to perform according to what you want. It's only their speeches which impress you, not their performance in decision-making to produce the tangible results you want to see in society.

    . . . my representative is accountable to their electorate/state.
    No, s/he's accountable only to a system dominated by the rich and powerful, not to average voters who have no power to choose anything other than from a limited list dictated to them, and to which they can mark their "x" by this name or that, after 99% of the selection process has been done for them by a system they have no control over.


    They have something to lose if they do a bad job.
    But "bad" according to whom? Not citizens in the bottom 90 or 95% who have no privilege or power or wealth. It's only the wealthiest campaign contributors who have any control over the political contenders who successfully fought tooth-and-nail to rise to the top of the heap and gained enough power to have their names publicized and put before the populace -- their wealthy contributors have some power to pull the plug by withholding future donations if a politician does a "bad job" in getting those special favors for them. They're the ones, not 99% of us, who decide what a "bad job" is, and maybe a few other power elitists who could threaten them in some way by exerting pressure on them.

    And even if average citizens/voters had some way to threaten the representative, they have minimum access to the mechanics of the system to judge if the representative really produced a desirable result in the wheeling and dealing among the power-brokers. Even if they know so-and-so cast a "yea" or "nay" on a certain measure, that usually tells us nothing about tangible results later, or about many alternative measures which might have been better than the one voted on, or about other votes taken in committee which didn't get publicized and yet were even more important in changing the outcome. The average bewildered voter is only guessing when s/he thinks a politician served their interest -- their superficial method of rating the politicians individually, from the TV ads and sound bites and speeches, has little to do with seriously measuring how well they did or comparing one politician's performance to another's.


    Your alternative is to randomly select those lawmakers from "a mob of idiots" who are . . .
    No, the average ordinary citizens do not have to be the "mob of idiots" the present system creates with its campaign rallies and speech-making circus atmosphere.

    A "mob of idiots" is a one-sided partisan audience of Blue or Red fanatics driven by slogans and impulses and symbols, cheering on their champion who manipulates them by telling them what they want to hear, or promising whatever necessary to the select interest group. The better system we need, using ordinary citizens to make decisions, would be a process of dialogue to consider all sides of each issue, with opposite sides listening to each other and questioning each other in order to find the real answers, or solutions. The "mob of idiots" is what we create in the present system of not having that kind of reasonable dialogue process, and instead having elitists manipulate the masses and herd them this way or that with their dog-whistle speeches, rather than promote thinking and truth-seeking.

    When the decision-makers are doing their job through a thinking and truth-seeking process, they are no longer a "mob of idiots" even if they are the 99%, or the non-elitist ordinary citizens.

    . . . who are accountable to no-one and . . .
    Better to be accountable to no-one rather than to the narrow-interest campaign donors and elitist power-wielders and party bosses our current politicians are accountable to, which means the new system would be a move away from this current bad form of accountability, and a move toward a more genuine form of accountability.

    There are different kinds of accountability, which could be experimented with in different forms of procedure. One approach is to increase the participation to the point where everyone who wants to participates in the decision-making, in a vast number of small decision-making bodies, in which case it's your own direct participation which ensures that your interests play a role in the process, rather than relying on someone else to "represent" you and be "accountable" to you.

    But also, if the process relies on a limited number of participants, selected randomly so most citizens do not participate directly in the decisions, then the number of them still has to be large enough so that all the interests of society are found among the participants, meaning the decision-makers will pursue all the same interests as the general population. Trying to make it so they're inclusive and representative of all the interests of the society would be difficult, but they would be more representative than what we have now, where it's a guarantee that the lower 90% of society is excluded from the picture and only the top 1-10% has any influence on the decision-makers.

    And, there can be different ways to reward those who perform well, assuming their performance can be measured in some way. That's another matter for experimenting, to see how there might be a system of rewards or penalties based on performance. Obviously there is no serious system now incentivizing the politicians to act in everyone's interest, but only to the benefit of an elitist few.

    . . . accountable to no-one and stand to lose nothing by doing a bad job.
    Obviously the current crop of elitists and speech-makers lose nothing as a result of the bad job they're doing. They're evaluated only on how well they deliver special favors to their contributors, and on how well they perform in manipulating voters and displaying their charisma in the beauty-contest electioneering spectacles, where their good or bad job (mostly bad) plays no role or is obfuscated by their good or bad performance in the speech-making contests.


    Where is the evidence that these pundits are more knowledgeable in science, technology, economics, history, etc.? They're never tested. It's easy for a good speech-maker to bullshit his way, yet having his head up his ass even worse than the average citizen who lacks the talent to fake it.
    The people I personally vote for are certainly more knowledgeable in those subjects than the average citizen.
    You have no evidence for that. Other than knowing the number of this or that bill being voted on, and other legislation information easily learned by any participant involved in the wheeling-and-dealing, there's no evidence that the politicians have a higher level of knowledge. They are immune to having to take any test to demonstrate what they know. Occasionally, when they are asked to display their knowledge, they fall on their face and show their real level of ignorance, because they're accustomed to mostly faking their way, which the system makes easy for them.

    (Although it's true that longstanding KKK-member ("Exalted Cyclops" of his local chapter) Robert Byrd, Senator of West Virginia, did have some extra knowledge of history, but that was an exception -- and even so, his foremost talent was speech-making, not higher knowledge.)


    On top of that, they've also spent a long time learning how government institutions work, . . .
    That's partly true, like a crafty criminal figures out how to manipulate factors of crime, the clever planning, casing the building, who to pay off, and so on. But becoming an expert on how to manipulate a rigged system, or on how to rig it even better, is not the kind of learning we need from our decision-makers.

    . . . how to build a consensus with people who have conflicting agendas, . . .
    No, that's not what they're good at. Their learning is on how to jam through their limited agenda in order to satisfy their narrow-interest supporters such as wealthy campaign contributors. They are far better at suppressing any opposing agendas than at building consensus. Politics is a battleground where warfare is carried on to crush the other side, not a consensus-building process. It's those who shut out the other side and are good at rallying their own troops and stomping their enemies who win the battles, not those who engage the opposition in a process of debate and truth-seeking to reach understanding.

    . . . and they are willing to arrange their lifestyle around the extraordinary work commitments that come with the job.
    It's true that successful power-hungry aggressive crusaders out to dominate others probably have extra talent for adapting to the demands of the job, to mobilize and marshal their forces, to maintain their power base and crush those who stand in their way. It's true that they show extraordinary commitment and perseverance and stamina in their pursuit of power. And it's this aggressiveness and ability to dominate through thick-and-thin to force their program onto others which is their main asset, not their knowledge or talent for consensus-building or conflict-resolution or problem-solving.

  5. Top | #65
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,865
    Rep Power
    15
    Anyone who thinks 'citizen' rule on the scale of the USA is a good thing should come to Seattle. Or read up on the French Revolution. Or the Russian Revolution. Citizen judges? Right.

    The Scopes Trial.


    The federal judiciary is biased as it is.

    The idea of an independent judiciary is difficult at best. It tries to get around rule by a central legal authority in a person or group and is always flawed.

    Look at Iran where the top cleric can over rule anything in the country. That is what the founders tried to prevent. Flawed humans will always make flawed systems. The question is how best to limit the problems to a minimum.

    The thread has been hijacked.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •