I’m of the opinion The West as a whole needs a brand new system — made in the 21st century for the 21st century using the following themes:
- simplicity
- standardization (silly humanity tries to accomplish the same goals a million different ways — pick the best and use it until a better option comes down the pipe)
- economies of scale
- free and open data for circular accountability
- basic income (AI and technology is going to create massive gains in economic output so can easily afford this)
I believe a federal - municipal system would be best. Mayors can be elected by their local constituents; then the mayors can elect a leader/dictator who has a great deal of power to push forward their agenda, with a veto mechanism to prevent them going off the rails (mayors have the vote for the veto, but make it high like 75% for example so you need a strong consensus to veto the leader).
Create a constitution made in the 21st century for the 21st century.
Create a system so good that everyone wants in as the benefits will be so immense that only fools will stay out (a better quality of life and economic outcomes). Could likely start this system in Canada and go after the low hanging fruit that is The Commonwealth.
The arc of humanity and civilization is unification — I believe we are seeing the late stages of nationalism (which is fragmentation and wars). I believe we must live through this chaotic WW3 era before my grand plan door opens.
This is a great step forward. The impression one gets are that these committees are totally dysfunctional and little to no progress happens. As I was reading through the first part I was asking myself where the different perspectives lie which you obviously covered quite well. Looking forward to seeing more.
I find that the AI needs some prodding before it'll identify debate points. It's almost like it really wants to believe that we humans all get along perfectly without disagreements. :)
Two questios: 1) are the reponses posted vebatim from the AI generator? 2) were any of the responses backchecked against the sources to gauge accuracy?
1. Pretty much. I did remove some paragraphs to reduce overlap and repetition but I don't remember editing anything.
2. Nope. I read through the text as a quick check for obvious errors, but these posts are primarily the work of the AI (ChatGPT-4o in this case).
Interestingly, I just had a chat today with someone inside the federal government who told me that many departments are building workflows to do exactly this kind of thing internally. There's just way too much data being generated to be useful for human beings.
Seems the answer to all ills is to form a committee to develop a consensus opinion around forming a framework to analyze the upside possibilities of networking with stakeholders to establish a robust and integrated framework to form a committee. I hate bureaucrats.
I appreciate the effort in synthesizing the output of these committees. I am reminded of a sand box where children can keep busy in the purgatory of "all good ideas"-killing committees attempting to nullify the efforts of their adversaries while the big boys make all the real decisions in the PMO. The predictable result will be the co-opted participation of the opposition in the continuous metastasizing of leviathan. My cynicism on this is a result of years in municipal politics and contentious (provincial land use) committee work.
I'd only add that the big boys are probably the ones in the Privy Council Office, rather than the PMO. I haven't seen any public transcripts of *their* meetings, though.
Thanks for putting that together. I like that the answers given are a summary of the testimony, and while it does present different views of different parties, it doesn't feel like it's an effort to get the reader to agree with the writer. Or at least that's my initial impression.
That is quite well done. Thank you.
Thank you.
I’m of the opinion The West as a whole needs a brand new system — made in the 21st century for the 21st century using the following themes:
- simplicity
- standardization (silly humanity tries to accomplish the same goals a million different ways — pick the best and use it until a better option comes down the pipe)
- economies of scale
- free and open data for circular accountability
- basic income (AI and technology is going to create massive gains in economic output so can easily afford this)
I believe a federal - municipal system would be best. Mayors can be elected by their local constituents; then the mayors can elect a leader/dictator who has a great deal of power to push forward their agenda, with a veto mechanism to prevent them going off the rails (mayors have the vote for the veto, but make it high like 75% for example so you need a strong consensus to veto the leader).
Create a constitution made in the 21st century for the 21st century.
Create a system so good that everyone wants in as the benefits will be so immense that only fools will stay out (a better quality of life and economic outcomes). Could likely start this system in Canada and go after the low hanging fruit that is The Commonwealth.
The arc of humanity and civilization is unification — I believe we are seeing the late stages of nationalism (which is fragmentation and wars). I believe we must live through this chaotic WW3 era before my grand plan door opens.
This is a great step forward. The impression one gets are that these committees are totally dysfunctional and little to no progress happens. As I was reading through the first part I was asking myself where the different perspectives lie which you obviously covered quite well. Looking forward to seeing more.
I find that the AI needs some prodding before it'll identify debate points. It's almost like it really wants to believe that we humans all get along perfectly without disagreements. :)
Two questios: 1) are the reponses posted vebatim from the AI generator? 2) were any of the responses backchecked against the sources to gauge accuracy?
1. Pretty much. I did remove some paragraphs to reduce overlap and repetition but I don't remember editing anything.
2. Nope. I read through the text as a quick check for obvious errors, but these posts are primarily the work of the AI (ChatGPT-4o in this case).
Interestingly, I just had a chat today with someone inside the federal government who told me that many departments are building workflows to do exactly this kind of thing internally. There's just way too much data being generated to be useful for human beings.
Seems the answer to all ills is to form a committee to develop a consensus opinion around forming a framework to analyze the upside possibilities of networking with stakeholders to establish a robust and integrated framework to form a committee. I hate bureaucrats.
I appreciate the effort in synthesizing the output of these committees. I am reminded of a sand box where children can keep busy in the purgatory of "all good ideas"-killing committees attempting to nullify the efforts of their adversaries while the big boys make all the real decisions in the PMO. The predictable result will be the co-opted participation of the opposition in the continuous metastasizing of leviathan. My cynicism on this is a result of years in municipal politics and contentious (provincial land use) committee work.
I'd only add that the big boys are probably the ones in the Privy Council Office, rather than the PMO. I haven't seen any public transcripts of *their* meetings, though.
Thanks for putting that together. I like that the answers given are a summary of the testimony, and while it does present different views of different parties, it doesn't feel like it's an effort to get the reader to agree with the writer. Or at least that's my initial impression.
That's definitely my goal. Although I hope to get better at delivering shorter digests with less overlap. AI's can be very verbose and repetitive.