From 18:00 onward there's this nonsensical part werd they discuss randomly selecting experts. That seems against the core of lottocracy and overall a terrible idea. Experts are to be selected meritocratically, as per the standards set by the representatives of the people, for the purposes these representatives need their expertise. It sounds so out of place. Representatives are not experts, and lottocracy is not meant to select experts, but representatives of a community.
@gJonil Of you think of it using the Supreme Court as an example it won’t seem so nonsensical. Rather than a politically charged battle around every court member, they could be selected randomly from a pool of Appelate Court judges. Thus you get the best of both worlds, expertise and un tampered representation.
@lancehilt7536 I think that's overall a terrible idea. Even with justices in the US style system, chosen for life, I'd much rather let that political battle play out among randomly selected representatives, rather than some lottery. It's a position of expertise, and should be treated as such. Lottocracy/sortition is NOT a system you should use for expert work. If you know a good mechanic who does the job reliably and cheaply, and you need a mechanic, I'd consider it a terrible idea to do some lottery on who you call. If you know a reliable judge you think is of excellent character befitting of becoming a justice, advocate for that person, don't pick at random. There's a deeper problem with this terrible idea about using lottocracy to select experts, that I think goes unsaid in this video but is implied, that it's believed that representative is an "expert". That's entirely false. Representative just needs to bring in the values of those being represented. Expertise is available for delegation, for example by hiring experts as justices, doing expert hearings, having aides, secretaries, specialists, etc. It's similar to how being a house owner is not the same as being expert in anything. You're a director, free to direct the house, hire plumbers, do garden work, and perhaps you're incentivized to become an expert in some common tasks... But that's ultimately not the relevant, important part of house ownership, or being a representative. The responsibility/privilege to direct is.
@@lancehilt7536 Both of those statements seem entirely false and indicative you did not read my comment, as the only time I used uncommon capitalization was near the beginning for the word "not". I also never called anyone any names in the entire message. Or, in the words of ChatGPT: "The message does not resort to name-calling or excessive capitalization. While it strongly critiques the idea of using a lottery system (lottocracy) to select experts, it remains focused on reasoning and argumentation rather than personal attacks. The term "terrible idea" is used repeatedly to express the author’s disapproval, but it targets the concept rather than individuals and stays on point. Additionally, the capitalized "NOT" emphasizes the stance against lottocracy for expert roles, but it doesn’t dominate the tone or replace substantive reasoning. The message remains clear, relying on analogies and logical arguments rather than resorting to derogatory language."
@@lancehilt7536 But, just to clarify, the problem there, that may have been unclear before, is that lottocratic selection is useful to allow shared decision making among many owners, in case where it's not reasonable to have each owner dedicate their full time to this ownership, and it makes more sense to have a limited number of representatives to act with the authority of everyone. Like government. There is no expert community that demands representation. We don't care if the judge community is "fairly represented" in expert tasks, we want judges we trust to do well in the expert tasks given to them, for those tasks, individual vetting makes a ton more sense than trying to create a pool of supposedly "equally qualified" candidates. We only need one qualified one, and if there's no difference above minimum qualifications, we should pick the first one we find. If there is a difference, we should pick the best one we can find. Either way, randomized picking adds nothing here, since this is not a task of representation, but of expertise.
We should consider this. The Oligarchy if the USA has to go
From 18:00 onward there's this nonsensical part werd they discuss randomly selecting experts. That seems against the core of lottocracy and overall a terrible idea. Experts are to be selected meritocratically, as per the standards set by the representatives of the people, for the purposes these representatives need their expertise.
It sounds so out of place. Representatives are not experts, and lottocracy is not meant to select experts, but representatives of a community.
@gJonil Of you think of it using the Supreme Court as an example it won’t seem so nonsensical. Rather than a politically charged battle around every court member, they could be selected randomly from a pool of Appelate Court judges. Thus you get the best of both worlds, expertise and un tampered representation.
@lancehilt7536 I think that's overall a terrible idea. Even with justices in the US style system, chosen for life, I'd much rather let that political battle play out among randomly selected representatives, rather than some lottery. It's a position of expertise, and should be treated as such.
Lottocracy/sortition is NOT a system you should use for expert work. If you know a good mechanic who does the job reliably and cheaply, and you need a mechanic, I'd consider it a terrible idea to do some lottery on who you call. If you know a reliable judge you think is of excellent character befitting of becoming a justice, advocate for that person, don't pick at random.
There's a deeper problem with this terrible idea about using lottocracy to select experts, that I think goes unsaid in this video but is implied, that it's believed that representative is an "expert".
That's entirely false. Representative just needs to bring in the values of those being represented. Expertise is available for delegation, for example by hiring experts as justices, doing expert hearings, having aides, secretaries, specialists, etc. It's similar to how being a house owner is not the same as being expert in anything. You're a director, free to direct the house, hire plumbers, do garden work, and perhaps you're incentivized to become an expert in some common tasks... But that's ultimately not the relevant, important part of house ownership, or being a representative. The responsibility/privilege to direct is.
@gJonii
You aren’t making a reasoned argument, you are only name-calling and reiterating your position in CAPITAL letters.
@@lancehilt7536 Both of those statements seem entirely false and indicative you did not read my comment, as the only time I used uncommon capitalization was near the beginning for the word "not". I also never called anyone any names in the entire message.
Or, in the words of ChatGPT:
"The message does not resort to name-calling or excessive capitalization. While it strongly critiques the idea of using a lottery system (lottocracy) to select experts, it remains focused on reasoning and argumentation rather than personal attacks. The term "terrible idea" is used repeatedly to express the author’s disapproval, but it targets the concept rather than individuals and stays on point.
Additionally, the capitalized "NOT" emphasizes the stance against lottocracy for expert roles, but it doesn’t dominate the tone or replace substantive reasoning. The message remains clear, relying on analogies and logical arguments rather than resorting to derogatory language."
@@lancehilt7536 But, just to clarify, the problem there, that may have been unclear before, is that lottocratic selection is useful to allow shared decision making among many owners, in case where it's not reasonable to have each owner dedicate their full time to this ownership, and it makes more sense to have a limited number of representatives to act with the authority of everyone. Like government.
There is no expert community that demands representation. We don't care if the judge community is "fairly represented" in expert tasks, we want judges we trust to do well in the expert tasks given to them, for those tasks, individual vetting makes a ton more sense than trying to create a pool of supposedly "equally qualified" candidates. We only need one qualified one, and if there's no difference above minimum qualifications, we should pick the first one we find. If there is a difference, we should pick the best one we can find. Either way, randomized picking adds nothing here, since this is not a task of representation, but of expertise.