How do you deal with competitors, people who want you to fail, in open systems? | Hacker News Reader

How do you deal with competitors, people who want you to fail, in open systems?

jimgilliam.com

10 pointsjgilliam7 comments

You could duplicate the system - so you have something like "White House 2" and "anti-White House 2" - try to get each group to focus on getting their ideas / facts / opinions organised rather than on sinking each other ships.

It'd potentially stop each of them from polluting the other, although you'd probably have to have somewhere designated as middle ground for those that want to debate things.

There are other ways to partition the two groups, but having a way for them to come together as well would be interesting. If as well as "Endorse / Oppose" you had "Thought provoking / not" then you potentially slip the more thought provoking ideas from one area across to the other (tagged as having come across from the other side).

You might have to start a new set of comments when it moves across so the old discussion doesn't get derailed, but at least it lobs various ideas over the fence.

I think the example provided is quite flawed. No one wants government to fail.

The argument is: What is the purpose of government and there are multiple views and perspectives on that. The question, is then how do we work together when we disagree on the purpose and final goals.

In general the best way to do that is through a federalist process, where thing that all agree to bubble up to provide uniformity, where people feel strongly and are in disagreement allow them to self-segregate and then agree in their local area.

The problem with the government example is that by definition you are pointing a gun at someones head to make them do what you want; whereas competitor's are competing for mindshare of voluntary actors.

I think you got a point, namely that the initial question is flawed, but I don't agree entirely. Anarchists might want no government, at all.

However, even anarchists could participate on the side, for example by making a general suggestion ("Remove the government.") or by making particular suggestions ("Remove taxes", "Remove legislation", etc.). So I'm not quite sure what the original blog post is really about.

After studying the side -- and I find the idea quite interesting --, I think there are some flaws in the basic design. For each suggestions can have at least one counter-suggestion. For example, the counter-suggestion to "End the Drug War" could be "Continue the Drug War". Strictly speaking, everybody is then probably going to make two votes, endorsing one and opposing the other.

In fact, every topic may have several distinct proposals. For example, the topic "Drug regulation" may have the proposals "No regulation, at all", "Regulate hard drugs, but not marijuana.", "Regulate on a local level", "Regulate all drugs, even alcohol and tobacco", and many others. In such a design, nobody needs to vote against a proposal.

Another point, although this one is going off-topic: As a European, I find it hard to make any informed decision on many of the topics. I guess, even as a US citizen, I would probably have the same problem, too. For example, what do people really mean when they suggest to "End the drug war"? Stop regulating drug ownership? Or allocate less money on drug law enforcement? A suggestion needs a proper explanation what activities are suggested.

Next, why should I have to browse through thousands of opinions to read about the arguments for a certain proposal? A argument needs no header, no author, no date, no discussion (as long as it's a correct argument) and I don't care how many supporters found an opinion helpful.

It certainly need no comments such as "Think of how much money and resources it took in 2007 to arrest, incarcerate and process the 800,000 citizens arrested for marijuana related offenses alone!" Well, how much money and resources were spend in 2007? I don't know. Why not just give me the facts: "According to the study by <institution>, 5 billion dollars were spend on arresting citizens for marijuana in 2007. This money could have been spend on real criminal problems." This is an argument, although people may disagree with it.

Next, the idea of votes is probably flawed, too. There is no costs when supporting a proposal except time. Active people will have more influence by voting for lots of proposals, while less active people have less. A non-vote thus has two meanings: "I don't care" as well as "I have had no time to care, yet". I'd probably find it better when everybody gets a fixed amount of votes that can be spend anywhere. This way, spending 5 votes for a certain proposal makes me loose my ability to support other topics. Everybody will then be more careful where to spend his or her votes. Votes should be movable so when I change my mind, I can express that by moving votes out of certain suggestions and into other ones.

Of course, double accounts might become more of a problem. But, on the other side, it already exists with the current design.

This way, any political area -- such as "Drug regulation" -- can have an overview on all alternative proposals, including their relative support by participants.

I'm not sure if my thoughts are helpful for the blog author. However, I certainly would find an alternative design more useful, more interesting, and I would certainly participate if I were a US citizen.

Anarchists are in a difficult situation because with their views, there is no justification for any federal level.

As for end the drug war, you'll find people all across the spectrum. I stand on the side that the only drugs that need to be controlled are those whose use weakens its effect -- for instance certain antibiotics need to be controlled so that super bugs don't develop. Everything else can be legal.

That's a good question, Jim.

Instead of going with your example, which could get partisan in a hurry, take a look at IT projects. Ever been on an IT project that shouldn't exist? Say something that's not going to help anybody, probably won't even be released, and is going to waste a lot of time and money?

What do you do? How do you have a rational conversation about making something good when there is a legitimate view that it shouldn't exist at all?

I think you get it out in the open, talk it out, and rhetorically have at it. Then you put it away and leave it alone. Perhaps you could have a special section of the site for "why do this at all?" posts. People who kept venturing into that no-man's land could be directed there, instead of rehashing the same debate over and over again.

I'm with your competitors: government is a necessary evil and I do not wish it to successfully intrude into all areas of my personal life. But I can see your point too -- if we're going to do something, we can't make progress if some don't want anything to work.

So I say respect the dissenters, let them have their say, but don't let them ruin your momentum.

There's a huge difference between someone who doesn't want govt to succeed and someone who doesn't want your vision of govt to succeed.

> Many view government as competition to private industry and their own freedoms, so a failed government is a good thing.

And then there are the folks who view your vision of govt as a threat to their liberties and so on.

There are two reasons why someone might "confuse" those two groups. I wonder which one applies here?

Correct, that's why I'm making a distinction between them. How do you deal with the people who don't want government to succeed? I'm not asking how do you deal with people who may have a different vision for how government can be successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com