"what to do NOW"

[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1000 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.0807 MDT)]

>Mike Acree (2000.04.12.1213 PDT)--

>I have always been concerned to try to establish a slope in the right
>direction, by which I would mean less arbitrary, or coercive, interference
>in our lives. I'm not sure why it would ever have looked otherwise,
>except that our discussion has been focused more on the endpoint, where we
>clearly diverged.

Yes, and I am coming to the conclusion that these "endpoint" discussions
are of little use. The real questions are about what to do NOW.

If PCT suggests that controlling other living control systems is
ineffective, unproductive and even distructive (Chapter 17 B:CP) how is it
then, considering all the possible trade-offs, that PCT advocates for
doing anything NOW, that in any manner intends to coerce?

Best,
nth

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.1608 MDT)]

Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1000 MST)--

If PCT suggests that controlling other living control systems is
ineffective, unproductive and even distructive (Chapter 17 B:CP) how is it
then, considering all the possible trade-offs, that PCT advocates for
doing anything NOW, that in any manner intends to coerce?

PCT doesn't advocate doing anything; it simply tells you what results to
expect. Coercing someone, PCT predicts, will result in conflict. So if a
mugger demands your money, and you coercively prevent him or her (equal
opportunity) from mugging you, there will be conflict between you and the
mugger. Now we are beyond theory and into applications. You must now judge
what will happen in a conflict between you and the mugger. If the mugger is
much stronger than you, or has a weapon, you may judge that you would lose
the conflict, so you would decide not to resist. There are all kinds of
considerations -- other goals -- involved, so no blanket recommendation is
possible.

Doing something NOW, as I put it, may not involve anything coercive at all.
As I suggested, one first move to mollify the opposition (i.e., you and
Mike) might be a concerted effort to locate and remove laws and regulations
that are no longer justified, or that can clearly be shown to be unjust. I
would concur in that, and I expect you would, too. It might even be
possible to get legislators to concur; it's a project that sounds
politically nice, and might even be a real vote-getter. If we could somehow
get rid of all laws and regulations that are considered onerous, arbitrary,
or unneeded, it might be possible to get a consensus on the remaining laws
and regulations, which presumably address issues on which we are agreed, or
not far apart on.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.2300 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.1608 MDT)]

Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.1000 MST)--

>If PCT suggests that controlling other living control systems is
>ineffective, unproductive and even distructive (Chapter 17 B:CP) how is it
>then, considering all the possible trade-offs, that PCT advocates for
>doing anything NOW, that in any manner intends to coerce?

PCT doesn't advocate doing anything; it simply tells you what results to
expect. Coercing someone, PCT predicts, will result in conflict. So if a
mugger demands your money, and you coercively prevent him or her (equal
opportunity) from mugging you, there will be conflict between you and the
mugger. Now we are beyond theory and into applications. You must now judge
what will happen in a conflict between you and the mugger. If the mugger is
much stronger than you, or has a weapon, you may judge that you would lose
the conflict, so you would decide not to resist. There are all kinds of
considerations -- other goals -- involved, so no blanket recommendation is
possible.

Yes. poor question on my part.

Doing something NOW, as I put it, may not involve anything coercive at all.
As I suggested, one first move to mollify the opposition (i.e., you and
Mike) might be a concerted effort to locate and remove laws and regulations
that are no longer justified, or that can clearly be shown to be unjust. I
would concur in that, and I expect you would, too. It might even be
possible to get legislators to concur; it's a project that sounds
politically nice, and might even be a real vote-getter. If we could somehow
get rid of all laws and regulations that are considered onerous, arbitrary,
or unneeded, it might be possible to get a consensus on the remaining laws
and regulations, which presumably address issues on which we are agreed, or
not far apart on.

Best,

Bill P.

Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,
Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,
Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,
Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,
Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,
Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,

nth

[From Shannon Willaims (2000.04.14.0100 CST)]

[From Norman Hovda (2000.04.13.2300 MST)]

> [From Bill Powers (2000.04.13.1608 MDT)]
>
> As I suggested, one first move to mollify the opposition (i.e., you and
> Mike) might be a concerted effort to locate and remove laws and regulations
> that are no longer justified, or that can clearly be shown to be unjust. I

Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause, Applause,

Just a plug here- That is what 'Reinventing Government' is about. And
our current bureacracy is smaller per capita than it has been since
1930's, and more of our laws are goal based rather than rule based, and
many laws that could not be justified have been sticken.

Shannon

[From Bill Powers (2000.04.14.0850 MDTG)]

Shannon Willaims (2000.04.14.0100 CST)--

I like your comments, especially

Just a plug here- That is what 'Reinventing Government' is about. And
our current bureacracy is smaller per capita than it has been since
1930's, and more of our laws are goal based rather than rule based, and
many laws that could not be justified have been sticken.

Nice to hear. My approach is to start from where we are rather than where
we would like to be in 100 years. Control systems work not by _correcting_
errors, but by _reducing_ errors. If you keep reducing the error,
eventually it will become as small as possible. For some control processes,
that can happen in a tenth of a second. For others, it takes longer.

Best,

Bill P.