I'd agree. Like with Gillian's recent comment about basic needs satisfaction, a common problem in all of this is the [in]accuracy of self-reporting. This video states it well enough:
Why Socrates hated Democracy https://youtu.be/fLJBzhcSWTk "I cause you trouble and go against your desires in order to help you." Wants are never identical with needs and what we say we want/need is probably never identical with what we actually want/need, respectively. And if we layer Vladimyr's [in]accuracy of what someone says about others' wants/needs, we get even further from reality. We could try a parallax approach, though ... divide the whole into parts by multiple (different) methods (state, county, demographic, ...) and use something akin to Kullback-Leibler to constrain a set of "common models", perhaps in the context of a reference set of policies (environment, gun control, pot legalization, ...). Even if such an method for consensus were merely self-reported opinion, it might at least be a bit more robust, even though it's still phenomenological. On 12/02/2016 11:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I reckon that states' rights are really about allowing for more and different kinds of the latter, e.g. more local warlords, organizations like the KKK, etc. -- none of which that have measurable benefits to the full set of people in their vicinity but are nonetheless trotted-out as essential freedoms or prerequisites to civil society.
-- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
