I find it a bit strange that it does not seem to be common sense that the best system is Democracy. Probably most of the people DO live in a democratic system and have the luxury to think that something else might even be better.

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

Depends on your definition of democracy. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is a federal constitutional republic. I'm not sure if there are any truly democratic (in the original Greek direct democracy sense) in the world.

Dictatorial statement(opposited to democratic)

_________________
长考出臭棋.

I prefer a combination of both. But I do not want to mix religions into politics issues. "Separation of state and church" is a good idea.

Anyway, I prefer this world shows its varaities.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Some good laughs to be had here, I especially like Bill's post.

On a serious note, American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama feels that liberal democracies represent the end of history (cue gocat's observation that the US does not seem to be a liberal democracy), which I think is a pretty understandable perspective. Someone else has already made this observation, that a big property of democracy is its inertia. Also of note, liberal democracies typically don't declare war on liberal democracies.

Personally, I share many opinions with http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ - there should be extensive scientific research on optimal ways to run countries (and on a sidenote, institutions - like universities). It sounds like this is the ideal of holacracy, but I haven`t seen the literature yet. Science is our best and, kind of definitively, only way of finding answers.

My natural (actually deeply pondered) feeling is against democracies, and yes, I live in one (and a reasonably good one, as they go). Trusting /every/ decision to mob wisdom seems irresponsible to me. Having started with Francis Fukuyama, I'm going to finish with one who's citation I have forgotten, but I like the direction of;

"A government that lets itself be led by the nose by public opinion is irresponsible."

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

I recommend to you Machiavelli's Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, in particular Book One (of three). Machiavelli had direct, personal experience with both monarchies and republics, and he read deeply of the history of Ancient Rome and Greece. Ultimately he comes down in favor of republics in just about every regard. They are more stable, they are better at sustaining and expanding a country's power, they are more likely to keep alliances, they encourage their citizens to succeed and can reward them when they do so, etc. He is hardly a dreamy romantic about republics, but he is very wary of absolute monarchs.

Machiavelli's definition of a republic includes elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; modern constitutionns (e.g., the United States Constitution) also combines these elements to prevent "mob rule."

_________________
I am Tartuffe from GoDiscussions.com

Interesting

You first paragraph is on the mark!

The second paragraph may be a surface impression, but you are phrasing it as elitism and nirvana which misses the point.

Holacracy provides a new underlying structure and decision making tools that balances and integrates diverse views, allowing everyone to participate (more importantly the appropriate people at a particular scope) in how we should go about doing things and improving our lives. There are no prescribed answers in Holacracy and no promised nirvana, but a new way of looking at reality to find the answers to move forward in a positive direction.

An analogy: A hammer is a tool to drive nails. With it you can build houses. The hammer does not tell you what house to build, it just enables you to build one. Is a sense, Holacracy is a tool for building organizations, it does not tell you what organization to build, it just provides a better way to build the organization; just as the hammer is a better way to drive nails than a stick or your fist.

Every new way is laughed at in the beginning. A the beginning of Democracy, imagine the nobles comments about the idea of letting their serfs vote on how the kingdom should be run.

Democracy has been a wonderful innovation and brought us to amazing level of living, but we all see some problems with it. Is it not time to refine it and improve once more? If we just sit on our laurels, some new idea will pass us by. We see it all the time in every venue.

Vitality comes with constantly reinventing ourselves. What is emerging now are tools (Holacracy is one example) to institutionalize this constant reinvention, as opposed to previous models that tend to stagnate and create bureaucracies.

_________________
Michael Dobbins; Dragon: mdobbins, KGS: mgd, AGA#: 4253,
My Website

It's not the ideas that are at issue but their presentation. When people use jargon in such a thick fashion, they often want to hide something. In this case, the ideas being presented are not all that new and very simple to grasp. The executive summary as well as yours (which is much better) really isn't saying much. Simply put:

Holacracy is this new idea that allows everyone to participate, when appropriate, in order to improve our lives now and in the future...

When you include – "appropriate people at a particular scope" – into your formulation you've just invoked elitism, which is necessary in my book. For example, I rely on physicians and mechanics for services in which I have little expertise. When it comes to fixing my body or my car, they're the ones making and executing the rules not me.

In my line of work, jargon is used in epidemic proportions. Everyone is trying to say something new when they really have nothing new to say. As far as institutionalizing change, which is what you're talking about, again nothing new here. It's sort of like trying to contain the 'flow' in the flow of water.

I know this comes off as very grumpy and cynical but it's not intended that way. There are some new and exciting ideas and some not-so-new but exciting ideas out there, and Holacracy may be one of the them. They just don't need to be dressed up in such cumbersome language.

Ok, so how much jargon did I end up using here?

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

So when you need surgery do you perform it yourself?

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Of course, the avatar...but how do you manage the anesthetic?

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

"Well, there's a delicate corneal inversion procedure... a multi-opti-pupil-optomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they've got to go in through the rectum. Ain't no man going to take that route with me!" Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Not at all. It does come off as insightful and balanced though.

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

lol thread.

_________________
Main Entry: zing·er Pronunciation: \ˈziŋ-ər\
1 : something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock
2 : a pointed witty remark or retort

I don't think you are grumpy, and I do sympathize with your feelings towards jargon. I work with people who talk in acronyms and if you ask them what that means, they never really know. Yes, a lot of Holacracy is presented in heavy jargon, I try to not do that and try to provide simpler alternatives when I am able. But language is an important part of understanding and doing. If we restricted language to pointing and grunting, we would not be where we are today. There are times when a new word is needed to speed up and better convey communication. And, yes, some people just love to push that to the extreme. I do personally like a simpler approach and believe that it is harder to communicate with the majority if you unnecessarily use complicated language.

The deep jargon in the summary is an attempt to describe what you can only really know by experiencing it. You can teach anyone the rules of Go, but try to describe what you feel after playing 10 years. How would you market that experience?

_________________
Michael Dobbins; Dragon: mdobbins, KGS: mgd, AGA#: 4253,
My Website

Somewhere in between. Most things are good when taken in moderation, not good when taken to extremes.

Another example is capitalism versus socialism.

_________________
My homepages: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Unkx80 and http://yeefan.sg/.