4 hours ago
(6 hours ago)Maxmars Wrote: I suppose the aggregate representation should take a different form. One of adherence to the will and principle of the represented.
But then the matter becomes one of a 'contract' of understanding between the actor and the represented.
In the end, it always comes down to a focus of intent.
(I apologize, I know I'm probably being obtuse...)
Not at all. Understanding follows engagement, not the other way around.
It's interesting that you mention contract. Contracts will never benefit you. At the best, one could hope for neutrality, but that would likely be naive.
Many governments are premised on the concept of a "social contract". How's that working out?
Judgments of representation require an abstract base model. A definition of where the middle of the bell-curves are. Such judgment from within the system being represented is never objective. Sortition avoids that problem.
Never trust any externality that say "take me to your leader".
