Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Top-down versus bottom-up governance

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 04:27:38 AM
"Really, research and technology should be open, but regulated and funded by the government directly (like the military). With corporate shit; it always ends up falling into the pattern of moving two steps forward and one step back. The technology ends up getting paced to maximize profits."

Military technology is a bit strange.  A lot of cutting edge stuff is completely regulated and funded by the government (shit like the F-117) and the more pedestrian, although still large and 'infrastructerlike' stuff (logistics, mostly... something no other country in the world can match us at.  Napolean said, "an army marches on its stomach.") almost completely handed over to the private sector and barely regulated (think KBR).  Other stuff, like body armour and training aides, are completely private companies and rather unregulated, but only sell to government contracts.  In all these areas the United States maintains a lead or at least parity with other industrialized nations.   In things like firearm manufacture we lag terribly behind.  This seems to result from massive regulation and zero funding from the government.  It is insanely difficult to make a firearm for commercial purposes in this country due to regulations that have grown in number since 1936.  The last three great American firearms were all designed before 1930 - the m1 Garand, the 1911, and the M2 Browning machinegun.  All three of these designs are 80+ years old.  Browning would never be able to make guns these days.  There have been no unqualified successes in American design since then, although the m16 (whose initial end-users were South Vietnemese and Portuguese i believe) is a reasonably good rifle... although it is ironic that the Stoner design team ended up doing mostly foreign contracts (the most interesting being the Singapore Ultimax project).
So it seems that some tech is best left closed source (would you have wanted the Manhattan Project to be open source?) while others would probably benefit from a more open source approach (like the current project to find a replacement for the m16) but government funding is always good.  Whether it be direct funding, or tax brakes to companies that build shit we actually need, like tanks or satellites.
I think Public Enemy tried to do something along these lines back in the early part of the decade... I remember reading an interview with Chuck D in which he talks about it.  It sounded like such a stupid idea that I didn't really read it very carefully or even in full...  The best music is usually done by a dictatorial type or at least in a very heirarchal structure.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 05:58:39 AM
Really, research and technology should be open, but regulated and funded by the government directly (like the military). With corporate shit; it always ends up falling into the pattern of moving two steps forward and one step back. The technology ends up getting paced to maximize profits.

The "corporate shit" ends up badly only when government kills it with taxes and all sorts of regulation, a completly free enterprise (=no regulations, depending solely on the managers decisions, intuition etc) shall go down "naturally". In any domain. I think technology (open source projects are, as i see it, creative people trying to stay away as much as possible from regulations. someone would argue that thats not a bussines, but it is, only that it gets money through free donations etc, exactly to be free from the idiocy of taxes etc) would evolve way better and faster (also concerning the environment) without government.

@Gefechtsgruppe10 "I  think Public Enemy tried to do something along these lines back in the early part of the decade... I remember reading an interview with Chuck D in which he talks about it.  It sounded like such a stupid idea that I didn't really read it very carefully or even in full...  The best music is usually done by a dictatorial type or at least in a very heirarchal structure."

Public Enemy is more politicaly "awaken" and strongly realistical then a huuuge mass of metal bands and metal fans... except Lemmy, evidently. :)) (I read some from an interview with mika luttinen and he's not an idiot either). I wouldnt know how best music is done but if you are refering to the classical situation, as the composer (conductor...) "orders" music into happening to the instrumentists (so, from top to bottom), i  disagree: that's playing, not composing, and just a traditional way, officialized by academics etc. Oposed to this see Thrrobing Gristle's live performances, for example.( Or maybe you were refering to the instrument mastering that allows you to control, hence dictatorial). Anyway the state regulation of art is criminal:think soviet "realism" and nazi organising great art shows in Berlin...horrible (concerning music i think hitler has some "great" lines, that music should be in such ways to mach totalitarian political goals, anything noisy should be illegal etc...) 

NHA

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 11:23:40 AM
To a salesman the product being sold is largely irrelevant, its just a means to an end (financial profit). Technological advancement can then be seen as a byproduct - which is a backwards way of doing things.

The premise behind free market is that competition will force advancement. In practice, it doesn't work out quite that nicely. Often vendors sell the same technology with only superficial modifications. It seems more that the pressure to have something superficially new to sell next year is the primary drive (paced technological advancement). Other industries have zero incentive to upgrade their technology because the R&D costs outweigh any potential increase in profits.


The government is free to provide advancement based on principle, without having to worry about profits. Unfortunately that comes with a whole new set of problems though heh. I guess NASA is a good example of how not to set things up.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 03:28:04 PM

The product is very important, the salesman can't just sell anything, who would buy just anything? If a large population buys stupid things, well that s tough for them... but in many cases may be the fact that there's a need for let s say cheeper products than high quality ones, i myself dont need let's ssay the best computer there is so i ll buy the one that fits my needs and  that salesman that deals this would get my money, not the one selling highly advanced tech. So selling is one thing, developing, creating better tech. is not the same: this part is linked to the antrepreneurs talent in anticipating than his talent to sell now, in the present. The competition between smart antrepreneurs that understand that they cant just make profit forever with  the same computers etc would be very much intrested in getting the best minds in this to improve their products. (look at bill gates, he keeps on loosing ground and hopes that involving in state affairs and programs shall make him prevale). Ofcourse the gov wouldnt worry about profits, they steal from everybody, they never loose, and if they do they ll just print some more money etc, and the principles they ll invoke are "nation" "progress" "security" and the rest of the crap.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 05:59:24 PM
The product is very important, the salesman can't just sell anything, who would buy just anything?

You don't live in the US, do you? Operators of a free market system always discover, eventually, that they gain the highest reward with the least effort by pandering to the individual's sense of ego. As NHA said, vendors often sell the same product with only superficial modifications. The objective of a free market system is not to develop quality, but to make money - and it's easier to do this by lying than it is to do it by creating something new. Your fear of the government's motives is laughable, since it's one of the few institutions left in the Western world that actually serves a necessary purpose.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 10, 2009, 11:04:39 PM
NHA - Public Enemy is interesting, at any rate.  They are pan-nationalists and support Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam offshot (sure, its not really Islam, its just some shit a black guy made up to rebel against whitey the blue eyed devil) who, in the past and probably into the present, has co-operated with the KKK on separation of the races.  I think the political apparatus linked with those groups both sponsored some kind of bill that would give reparations to black wanting to return to Afrika.  I think their basic ideology is ok, but there is far too much populism involved.... I think Flava Flave's net worth is something like $70 million (if one counts vast mountins of crack as capital asset, hehe).
It was to composition that I was referring as dictatorial.  The person who is inspired with the music and brings it into existence should know enough not to let other people adulterate it with their own (usually shitty) ideas. Sure, a great romantic composer might use a folk melody as a starting point, but its ultimately his perceptions and such that go into the new work.  Burzum/Aske wasn't assembled by a committee, and neither was Mozart's requiem mass.  Look at most bands - they will be mostly the inspiration of one member, and when the muse leaves him and the band starts coming up with ideas as a committee, the albums start to suck.
I agree state regulation on art generally sucks.  Like the monkeys with typewriters, every once in a while a mona lisa is made... but mostly it is terrible.  I went to a state college and the 'art' that was purchased with state money or with private donations to state property was fucking aweful.  There was a giant box of mcdonald's french fries (like six feet tall made of metal in the middle of the sidewalk on campus) that was ungodly.  FUCKING TERRIBLE.  That is the best example I've ever seen in my life of the negative effect of state intervention in art.  However...

"Ofcourse the gov wouldnt worry about profits, they steal from everybody, they never loose, and if they do they ll just print some more money etc, and the principles they ll invoke are "nation" "progress" "security" and the rest of the crap."

Mandrake - they mostly just steal from the middle class.  It seems you are probably under 30 - ask your parents how much they pay in taxes and you'll probably be shocked.   But yes, it would seem that when the government handles money it is one of two things (maybe some of both):
1.  Very, very naive and irresponsible.
2.  Very corrupt, but in a 'legal' way
But just because they do bad things does not mean that government in and of itself is a bad thing.  You haven't listened to your black metal carefully enough.  Government is necessary and thus we must embrace both the :) and the:( of gov't.  We are not a nation, but an empire.   Progess... well, sure, whatever.  American society is fucked up.  Security is a very real need, though.  And really is something I like paying taxes for.  Money to the Military, and money to our security apparatus (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc).  You think China and Russia really give a shit about our 'inalienable rights'?  They're playing fucking hardball man.  We must be prepared materially and spiritually to fuck their shit when it becomes necessary.  Not just them, their toadies, too.  North Korea is going to completely undermine our strategic position in east Asia (with the able assistance of that pussy Obama) and just hand it over to China.  They are fucking with us but we can do nothing because our soldiers are commited into other strategic blunders. Mark my words, Japan and the Phillippenes are going to be Chinese outposts within 10 years.  Security is a very real interest comrade.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 11, 2009, 06:31:57 AM
@Gefechtsgruppe10

(although i dont agree with this low-middle-high class way of putting things, but anyway...) Ofcourse the middle class is first to be the tax victim, they re the large number, the lower class is already a victim and it s a good thing for the gov to look like they re protecting the poor, and the "higher" class is mostly big bussines hand in hand with the gov.

black metal? i am listening to black metal (less than before, few new interesting LP's )...but i dont see the artists involved in this more than artists, their romantical aproach, although fertile in metal, is nothing but a bad ground for thinking politics, not to say economics. Gov exists on abuse basis: stealing the right of property and i'm talking about ANY gov, not just comunist etc, democracy too. Any time, invoking national security they could do just about anything, raise taxes, confiscate etc and then you ll not be that happy with the :) of the state. I lived under a totalitarian system, you havent i guess but most likely will... Any aggresive action on "international" field is not made by "the people", by you that pay taxes and think gov is necessary, but by those gov that, you know, assure your security against evil countries. Everybody is a contributor to those actions since they pay for everything (obligedly), but only those touched by the state propaganda will gladly obey and cheer this "neccesity".the tax payers that see and understand this situation should become secessionists as i understand there are in texas and other parts, but ofcourse the gov says is bad and therefore illegal--- "we should keep the "nationunited" etc. Ofcourse any "worrior" country doesnt give a fuck about your inalianable rights, but first of all your (mine also) gov doesnt give a fuck about them. The people of China wouldnt attack Japan etc as neither would american people, but their govs would. In comunist countries one of the first thing to inoculate was this permanent state of pressure from the other countries, they are evil, they plot to distroy everything, we are in danger, typical propaganda for a gov that itself plots aggression.
Hope you see my point. English is not my first language.

Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 11, 2009, 07:09:17 PM
Admin & Mandrake:  I don't want to pull this thread any more off topic.  Maybe a new topic in the chasm could be created for discussion of governance and strategy, while leaving this thread for the discussion of open source music?...  Thanks.

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 11, 2009, 11:23:03 PM
The product is very important, the salesman can't just sell anything, who would buy just anything?

You don't live in the US, do you? Operators of a free market system always discover, eventually, that they gain the highest reward with the least effort by pandering to the individual's sense of ego. As NHA said, vendors often sell the same product with only superficial modifications. The objective of a free market system is not to develop quality, but to make money - and it's easier to do this by lying than it is to do it by creating something new.

But the fact is that it (making money) often does occur by creating something genuinely new. I don't see how a few supposed counterexamples undermine a view broadly sympathetic to free enterprise.

Quote
Your fear of the government's motives is laughable, since it's one of the few institutions left in the Western world that actually serves a necessary purpose.

What necessary purpose? It could be, and indeed has been, argued that much of what we take to be purposes for which the state is necessary is largely an artifact of the very existence of the state. This is, of course, sort of a catch 22 from a practical perspective, but still...

Mandrake: Are you by any chance a market anarchist? I must say I am extremely surprised to find my ideological kin on this forum of all places. Cheers.

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 17, 2009, 03:23:06 PM
@Ginnungafap: It's impossible for me to find something more coherent, concerning economics, politics, justice, than the works of M. Rothbard. So, yes, that pretty much makes me an anarcho-capitalist.

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 23, 2009, 04:57:26 AM
I think it's impossible to imagine a functioning society without some kind of financial system.

And it makes sense that those who do well get rewarded.

Then we just need to make sure our standards are high enough that we reward the right acts.

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 25, 2009, 04:19:38 PM
@death metal black metal

I agree that is just fair that doing well should be well rewarded. But the "standards" that guide us in doing this reward (not mentioning the "well" concept) are fundementaly subjective. If an elite is considered so by a number of men then precisely that number of men, and nobody else, should obey their rule (think seccesion). It's a very big difference between a natural elite, and a government, wich is anything but natural: it forces the rest to obey them (and indirectly to  the majority that ellected them) - a leader should be followed by choice, by free will, and a leader that proves himself unworthy in the eyes of those who gave him this status should loose it when his "people" (exercing their free will again) just stop supporting him. It's easy to see that in a socialistic state (be it totalitarian or democratic) a natural elite is not just impossible but systematicaly decimated.

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 28, 2009, 01:10:42 AM
This thread got forgotten, it seems.

The real issue is between the crowd and the individual. Groups of people tend to favor lowest common denominator ideas that give them the most control. Each person in the crowd thinks they're coming out ahead. It's like a lottery.

So you probably need some way to beat that crowd down, if not outright kill them (hey, it's a solution).

I guess capitalism bums me out... but really, that's a secondary issue at best. The real issue is the huge number of congenitally stupid, irresponsible, corrupt, dishonest, predatory, etc. people we're building up.

Rid us of them, and even apocalyptic communism could work!

Re: Top-down versus bottom-up governance
June 28, 2009, 04:35:08 AM
This thread got forgotten, it seems.

The real issue is between the crowd and the individual. Groups of people tend to favor lowest common denominator ideas that give them the most control. Each person in the crowd thinks they're coming out ahead. It's like a lottery.

So you probably need some way to beat that crowd down, if not outright kill them (hey, it's a solution).

I guess capitalism bums me out... but really, that's a secondary issue at best. The real issue is the huge number of congenitally stupid, irresponsible, corrupt, dishonest, predatory, etc. people we're building up.

Rid us of them, and even apocalyptic communism could work!

I rule out the "killing solution", so we could continue the topic:)
 the pressure of crowds against the individual wouldnt be a problem if there wouldnt be a system that enforces it, what would "the crowd" do without laws to backs it up? there shall always be idiots, limited individuals etc but only under state rules they are given the power to crush individuals. So the problem is the state, for you cant just start geneticaly make everybody smart and aware (also their children to be ). Capitalism is not a secondary issue concerning this topic because at heart any (true) capitalist is incompatible with state rules. Any free enterprise (action, for that matter) despises regulations from above, from an socialistic, awfully moral, falimentary, leaching entity, that is the state, imposed for the "good of the people".

The crowd has been given rights. why? Nietzsche asked this, same Nietzsche that stated the great danger about the state.