> we need to solve in order to design effective government
Is there actually any demand for "effective govt"? (Yes, lots of people claim to want it, but do you really think that there's large scale agreement on what that means?)
Is there actually any demand for "effective govt"? (Yes, lots of people claim to want it, but do you really think that there's large scale agreement on what that means?)
G = SUM(Fi(W)) from i to WorldPopulation
Where W is the physical configuration of matter in the world. Fi is the function associated with citizen i that defines his notion of 'goodness'.
Bad government is one which tries to maximise an alternative function:
G = SUM(Fi(W) * Di) from i to WorldPopulation, where Di is some factor for each individual and where some Di are much greater than other Di. i.e. some individuals have much greater say over the configuration of the world which is chosen...
almost certainly not.
For example, many people think that "effective govt" involves some notion of "justice" and/or "fairness".
One concrete example is Obama's position wrt capital gains taxes. He wants higher rates even if that results in less revenue. (Higher rates with less revenue means that there's less capital gain, which means less wealth produced, aka less total stuff. Since there's less tax revenue, there's less govt spending.)
A significant number think that "effective govt" propagates certain values/behaviors and discourages others.
Yes, there is disagreement on what "justice" and "fairness" mean and there's also disagreement as to the values/behaviors to be encouraged/discouraged.
In politics, 'effective' really means 'does what I want.' When there is a lot of conflict about what people want, the government is not 'effective' because (A) deadlock is frustrating and (B) yelling louder is a way to get more and intimidate the opposition.
A government is less like a "singular intelligent self-modifying system" and more like a war on controlled burn.