# What will be some new jobs of the future?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
uries don't make laws. They are instructed in the law by a Judge. The jury's duty is to examine the evidence presented
and legal experts decide which evidence they'll hear, a decision that is revisited in the appeal. So expertise is required for that part of the appeal.
Experts decide which testimony they'll hear, which is also revisited. So, + expertise.
Experts explain the very specific questions the jury is to answer. "Did the state prove to you that the defendant intended for the whoha to hit the whatsit when he whatevered the whatchamacallit?" So that the jury's answer can be basically yes or no. Because they're really dumbing down the law for the jury.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
That's why prosecution used undercover detective looking down into a bag with blocks of drug covered by old plush stuffed animals in a case where I served as a juror. Too bad the defense was ready with it's "hard to see past large plush animals in a grocery bag" especially when the prosecution didn't mention that until the defense brought up the plush animals in the bags. The one looking had already been pretty much discredited on earlier 'observation' of his.

They were guilty. They got off. Liaryers tricks and over eager fuzz. The perp actually came to court decked out in gold rings and necklaces. Only in Lala land.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
Why do you think ordinary citizens are incapable of making important decisions for society?

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

Juries don't make laws.

They do whatever the law empowers them to do, and any state or city could empower "juries" to make laws. And there are countries where "juries" do make laws, though maybe they're not called "juries" -- but what they're called is just semantics.

They are instructed in the law by a Judge.

They can be instructed by whoever is needed to instruct them in their function. A quickie training course in legislation could be required, after which the "jurors" could perform the legislation function just as well as the preacher-speechmaker-demagogue-blowhards you like having do that function. But you can't give any reason why only your demagogue speech-makers have that capability.

The question is why it couldn't be done differently than this. Why must we rely only on these demagogue speech-makers to do the decision-making?

The jury's duty is to examine the evidence presented and render a verdict based on the instructions provided by the Judge.

Their duty is whatever the law says their duty is, and the law can be changed to empower them to do much more than only render verdicts in trials. Grand juries do more than what you're talking about. There are different kinds of juries, and different rules for them according to what jurisdiction it is. Not all "juries" fit one mold, as you're describing.

And they can receive their "instructions" however it is practical, not necessarily from a professional who requires 10 years of higher education. It's not true that we must have a system run only by elitists paid $300 -$400 thousand per year, thus causing the system to get so clogged that the needs and issues are delayed for years in order to be resolved.

It's not true that ordinary citizens are good for nothing other than to be put into factories to do makework jobs created for them by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to keep them out of mischief. Ordinary people can make decisions, contrary to your elitist philosophy that only demagogue professionals have any ability to think.

The decision rendered by the jury can also be set aside by the trial Judge, or by other Judges during the appeal process.

Who can easily be bribed. And who are political appointees. And the truth is that they hardly ever do "set aside" the jury decision. But if you think they should, why not also have the Judge set aside the decision of the voters, if they vote for the wrong candidate? or set aside the elections entirely because if the voters are so stupid at making decisions themselves, they are equally stupid at choosing who should make the decisions?

If you hate ordinary citizens making decisions, then why let them have any decision-making power at all, about anything? Obviously you think they are ignorant rabble incapable of understanding anything, so what is the point of having them make decisions at all?

Why do you think ordinary citizens are incapable of deciding anything other than that of choosing which demagogue tyrant to rule over them?

The question is why ordinary citizens should not be given a greater degree of decision-making power than in the current system. It's about what the process should be, not what it currently is.

If you're right that only elitist speech-makers are capable of making decisions, then why not also have them render the verdicts instead leaving this to the "jury" which is chosen from among the rabble citizenry who are too ignorant to make decisions about anything important?

Last edited:

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
And there are countries where "juries" do make laws, though maybe they're not called "juries" -- but what they're called is just semantics.

They're usually called a "parliament" or "congress", and they're often elected by the people to represent the people.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
We really don't need the Blue and Red speech-maker pundits to "lead" us.

And there are countries where "juries" do make laws, though maybe they're not called "juries" -- but what they're called is just semantics.

They're usually called a "parliament" or "congress", and they're often elected by the people to represent the people.

No, not that.

I neglected to put "make laws" in quotes. They've played a small role (today and historically) in legislation. Historically there have been some cases where "juries" did make laws or determine policies rather than a "Congress" or "Parliament" etc.

Today there is an effort to revive this form of decision-making for society, as an alternative to the politician speech-maker demagogues, who now make the decisions in our elitist-dominated class system which considers the average citizen as a dumb animal incapable of thinking, other than to mark an "x" on a ballot by a demagogue's name.

https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/sortition_around_the_globe

https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/what_is_sortition

https://participedia.net/method/5507

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12V9rV_bp_M Here's a (somewhat annoying) video about "sortition" which gives some modern examples of this method being used to write new constitutions (British Columbia, Belgium, Ireland, "all across the globe"), which doesn't say they "make laws" exactly, but that a law-making role is played using this "jury" approach rather than that of electing politicians giving speeches in Parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FsOH4KQp54 And in this (also somewhat annoying) video, the speaker adds Spain and Netherlands and Australia as countries where some important policies were decided by "sortition" rather than by politicians.

https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc376.pdf on p. 9, cites an example of "juries" (randomly-selected), in Oregon in 2011, which played a role in shaping ballot measures. Though this seems to have been a small part in policy decision-making, it was a necessary part of the process for measures which were adopted, and the decision-makers were chosen randomly from the population rather than being the usual partisan political appointees.

So the "jury" system of policy-making does exist in some cases, even if very limited. Proving that our current system of having charismatic demagogues give speeches to manipulate voters is not necessarily the only way that decisions can be made.

There's no reason to believe we couldn't get good decisions using ordinary people instead of the elitist demagogue-speechmaker-politician-blowhards you've been trained to vote for as your "leaders" to do your thinking for you.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
So the "jury" system of policy-making

And there, the goalposts moved. These assemblies don't make laws. They are organised, selected, steered and advised by experts, and the decisions they make have no force in law. The legislation is still made by the legislature.

There's no reason to believe we couldn't get good decisions using ordinary people...

Randomly-selected citizens' assemblies are just an extra layer of bureaucracy layered on top of the existing legislature. They aren't capable of replacing the legislature because they cannot plan and synthesise complex legislation. There are many crucial things that "ordinary people" don't understand, including science, technology, economics, history, geopolitics, and the law itself. I would never trust 99, or 999, random, unaccountable people to draft legislation on anything. I'd much rather delegate the job of law-making to someone who does it as a full-time job and therefore has the opportunity to do it properly.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Juries don't make laws.

They do whatever the law empowers them to do, and any state or city could empower "juries" to make laws. And there are countries where "juries" do make laws, though maybe they're not called "juries" -- but what they're called is just semantics.

They are instructed in the law by a Judge.

They can be instructed by whoever is needed to instruct them in their function. A quickie training course in legislation could be required, after which the "jurors" could perform the legislation function just as well as the preacher-speechmaker-demagogue-blowhards you like having do that function. But you can't give any reason why only your demagogue speech-makers have that capability.

The question is why it couldn't be done differently than this. Why must we rely only on these demagogue speech-makers to do the decision-making?

The jury's duty is to examine the evidence presented and render a verdict based on the instructions provided by the Judge.

Their duty is whatever the law says their duty is, and the law can be changed to empower them to do much more than only render verdicts in trials. Grand juries do more than what you're talking about. There are different kinds of juries, and different rules for them according to what jurisdiction it is. Not all "juries" fit one mold, as you're describing.

And they can receive their "instructions" however it is practical, not necessarily from a professional who requires 10 years of higher education. It's not true that we must have a system run only by elitists paid $300 -$400 thousand per year, thus causing the system to get so clogged that the needs and issues are delayed for years in order to be resolved.

It's not true that ordinary citizens are good for nothing other than to be put into factories to do makework jobs created for them by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to keep them out of mischief. Ordinary people can make decisions, contrary to your elitist philosophy that only demagogue professionals have any ability to think.

The decision rendered by the jury can also be set aside by the trial Judge, or by other Judges during the appeal process.

Who can easily be bribed. And who are political appointees. And the truth is that they hardly ever do "set aside" the jury decision. But if you think they should, why not also have the Judge set aside the decision of the voters, if they vote for the wrong candidate? or set aside the elections entirely because if the voters are so stupid at making decisions themselves, they are equally stupid at choosing who should make the decisions?

If you hate ordinary citizens making decisions, then why let them have any decision-making power at all, about anything? Obviously you think they are ignorant rabble incapable of understanding anything, so what is the point of having them make decisions at all?

Why do you think ordinary citizens are incapable of deciding anything other than that of choosing which demagogue tyrant to rule over them?

The question is why ordinary citizens should not be given a greater degree of decision-making power than in the current system. It's about what the process should be, not what it currently is.

If you're right that only elitist speech-makers are capable of making decisions, then why not also have them render the verdicts instead leaving this to the "jury" which is chosen from among the rabble citizenry who are too ignorant to make decisions about anything important?

You are clearly confused about the roles of legislators and jury members. Legislators are elected to office and they write and modify laws. Juries serve on trials as arbiters of the facts; they do not make or interpret the law, but are instructed in the law by the trial judge. Two very different functions.

Judges and lawyers are trained in the law, while most lay people are not. Lawyers and judges serve a vital role in the legal system, and their roles cannot simply be taken over by lay people who lack knowledge of the law. You would not expect a lay person to successfully carry out surgical procedures, build power stations and bridges, or even prepare tax returns for a large organization. But somehow these requirements for education and experience doesn't apply to judges and lawyers? Are you on high on drugs?

#### rjh01

##### Member
They may not make or interpret the law, but they can do something called "jury nullification." That is the defendant is guilty, the evidence is very clear on that, but the jury finds the defendant not guilty. It can also go the other way too. The person is not guilty but the jury find the defendant guilty anyway.

Remember if you ever get selected for a jury you are not answerable for your decision.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.
Think about the McDonald's coffee case. Most legal experts agree it was a good decision, a fair award, good law.
Corporate America campaigned to convince the average Joe it was bad law, juries gone crazy, litigation out of control. Which is where most of them still seem to be.
Let's have legal experts fo law. Joe average doing an appeal would be taking a compound fracture to the essential oils saleslady for treatment.

Wasn't the MacDonald's case decided by a jury who were "experts" in that they considered all the evidence in the case? I won't look it up, but it definitely could have been decided by a jury having all the facts on the case. That's what a real "jury" is supposed to be. They are the experts, unbiased, chosen at random from the citizenry.

If you think ordinary citizens cannot be "experts" on the given case, then you'd have to be against having the jury system, and let only the politicians and their appointees decide everything, even guilt-innocence in trials.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
What makes a polished speech-maker more competent or more qualified to make decisions?

So the "jury" system of policy-making

And there, the goalposts moved. These assemblies don't make laws. They are organised, selected, steered and advised by experts, and the decisions they make have no force in law. The legislation is still made by the legislature.

There's no reason to believe we couldn't get good decisions using ordinary people...

Randomly-selected citizens' assemblies are just an extra layer of bureaucracy layered on top of the existing legislature. They aren't capable of replacing the legislature because they cannot plan and synthesise complex legislation. There are many crucial things that "ordinary people" don't understand, including science, technology, economics, history, geopolitics, and the law itself. I would never trust 99, or 999, random, unaccountable people to draft legislation on anything. I'd much rather delegate the job of law-making to someone who does it as a full-time job and therefore has the opportunity to do it properly.

It could be something made more specialized. And then those randomly selected would do it full-time and do more preparation than a current jury member does.

But how is it that the only ones competent to perform this function have to be charismatic speech-maker demagogues? What is it you like about politicians whose main talent is to manipulate a mob of idiots with their speeches? Why do you want to make that talent to manipulate a requirement to be a decision-maker?

Where is the evidence that these pundits are more knowledgeable in science, technology, economics, history, etc.? They're never tested. It's easy for a good speech-maker to bullshit his way, yet having his head up his ass even worse than the average citizen who lacks the talent to fake it.

#### bigfield

##### the baby-eater
It could be something made more specialized. And then those randomly selected would do it full-time and do more preparation than a current jury member does.

So instead of a legislative assembly comprised of elected representatives, we would have a legislative assembly comprised of randomly selected people who aren't accountable for the decisions they make, and about half of whom are probably below average in terms of education and intelligence.

But how is it that the only ones competent to perform this function have to be charismatic speech-maker demagogues? What is it you like about politicians whose main talent is to manipulate a mob of idiots with their speeches? Why do you want to make that talent to manipulate a requirement to be a decision-maker?

I like the fact that I get to vote for my representatives in parliament, and as a result, my representative is accountable to their electorate/state. They have something to lose if they do a bad job.

Your alternative is to randomly select those lawmakers from "a mob of idiots" who are accountable to no-one and stand to lose nothing by doing a bad job.

Where is the evidence that these pundits are more knowledgeable in science, technology, economics, history, etc.? They're never tested. It's easy for a good speech-maker to bullshit his way, yet having his head up his ass even worse than the average citizen who lacks the talent to fake it.

The people I personally vote for are certainly more knowledgeable in those subjects than the average citizen. On top of that, they've also spent a long time learning how government institutions work, how to build a consensus with people who have conflicting agendas, and they are willing to arrange their lifestyle around the extraordinary work commitments that come with the job.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
How do we know the Professionals perform better? How are they being tested?

Where's the verification that the "expert" performs better than a layman would?

You are clearly confused about the roles of legislators and jury members. Legislators are elected to office and they write and modify laws.

And they do a rotten job of it. We have no evidence that these elected demagogues are proficient at performing this function. You have to set aside your emotional attachment to pundits and leaders and examine their performance.

Juries serve on trials as arbiters of the facts; they do not make or interpret the law, but are instructed in the law by the trial judge.

Grand juries sometimes do much more than that. Juries can be designed to perform whatever function we want them for.

Two very different functions.

Not always. There are different kinds of juries. Sometimes they are given much greater responsibility than only rendering verdicts in trials. And they could also be given a function in shaping laws. You have no evidence that their performance would be worse than that of the speech-maker demagogues doing it now, and screwing it up. It would be an improvement if a good process is created to put them into that role.

Judges and lawyers are trained in the law, while most lay people are not.

Lay people could be trained in it, as needed, without it requiring 10 years to become initiated. There'd be nothing wrong with a process which would train them for a few months, or however long needed.

Lawyers and judges serve a vital role in the legal system, and their roles cannot simply be taken over by lay people who lack knowledge of the law.

Many times they can be. It's mostly their status, and the aura of their office which distinguishes them, not their knowledge. In some cases we need a specialist/expert involved, but usually not the one(s) who make the final decision. This could come from ordinary people with help from specialists when needed.

Anyone ultimately can be replaced when they become too costly, and when they are too scarce. Resolving a case might be better done by non-professionals in preference to having the litigants wait years before getting a resolution. There are many appeal cases which could be resolved easily, yet they have to wait years because of the backlog.

You would not expect a lay person to successfully carry out surgical procedures, build power stations and bridges, or even prepare tax returns for a large organization. But somehow these requirements for education and experience doesn't apply to judges and lawyers?

Not as much. They are not in the same category as surgeons and engineers who must be tested and can confirm their knowledge by producing practical results with their skill. With judges and lawyers it's much more subjective. There is no way to test them to know a good judge from a bad judge, or a good lawyer from a bad lawyer, based on the tangible results they produce.

And why do we need highly specialized experts to judge cases of someone appealing a false arrest, who has to wait a year or longer in jail. And in many cases it was something simple which could be resolved easily without a law degree. How bad would it have to get? Would you make them wait 5 years?

There are thousands of horror stories of appeals held up because of the backlogs.

Are you on high on drugs?

No, it's an ego trip I'm on. Which is actually worse, but don't worry -- I'm confined to a special-care unit where I pose no threat to myself or others.

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
The jury system mostly works and should be experimented with to replace professionals.

They may not make or interpret the law, but they can do something called "jury nullification." That is the defendant is guilty, the evidence is very clear on that, but the jury finds the defendant not guilty.

Or a grand jury refuses to indict, which is an even stronger example of the professionals being rebuked, because it's saying this case is so bad that we won't even allow it to be tried.

An example of this is the case of a hospital in Louisiana hit by Hurricane Katrina, after which a doctor and 2 nurses were charged with 2nd-degree murder for euthanizing some patients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Medical_Center_and_Hurricane_Katrina -- Under the law there was a strong case, but the grand jury refused to indict (probably the right outcome).

False acquittal?

But what about the occasional bad outcome where a bad person is set free by a jury under local pressure and corruption and a culture of prejudice, plus the presumption-of-innocence and double jeopardy protection? Maybe this cannot be fixed. HOWEVER --

With citizen-panel decision-making bodies given wider functions than are done now, a process could be created to REVIEW past miscarriage-of-justice cases, even if the verdict cannot be overturned. Rather, the new investigation and review could make the determination of what really happened and issue findings that a verdict was wrong and the defendant was really guilty. Even though it could not then be used to change the sentence, still it would have an impact and give vindication to those who were wronged by the false acquittal.

It can also go the other way too. The person is not guilty but the jury find the defendant guilty anyway.

That's a good reason why we need to do better with the appeals process, so falsely-convicted prisoners would not have to wait years before their case is heard. This includes also 2nd and 3rd appeals, when sometimes the first appeal went wrong.

But if there could be citizen-appeal panels to hear cases, similar to juries, chosen randomly from the citizenry, many falsely-convicted prisoners could get justice much sooner. But no, we have to leave it to the professionals only, so those appealing their cases have to wait years.

Also there could be review of past death-penalty cases to clear the name of someone falsely convicted and executed. A legitimate purpose is served by reviewing such cases.

Remember if you ever get selected for a jury you are not answerable for your decision.

It's a debatable point whether some accountability might be appropriate. That could be experimented with.

But even if not, that problem is mostly fixed by the fact that a UNANIMOUS decision must be reached (or near unanimous) in order for the verdict to be official.

So, any decision-making bodies comprised of ordinary citizens randomly chosen have to be large enough, like 6 or more, so that the occasional bad member is canceled out. A very small body of only 3 might be dangerous. With so many countries and states and provinces and local jurisdictions, there's plenty of latitude for experimentation to see what works best.

Off hand it seems like bodies of at least 5 or 6, and larger, required to reach a unanimous decision, ought to produce some good results, equal to and better than the present legislatures made up of the elected politician-speechmaker pundits, and likewise for many of the judicial functions now done by expensive politically-appointed judges.

Last edited:

#### Lumpenproletariat

##### Veteran Member
Elitist elected politicians vs. average citizens (randomly-selected) as decision-makers

Elitist pundits giving speeches vs. ordinary citizens arguing in dialogue

So instead of a legislative assembly comprised of elected representatives, we would have a legislative assembly comprised of randomly selected people . . .

Something like that, but maybe not "a legislative assembly" per se -- rather, many small bodies, or councils, each performing a more specialized function than the current broad legislature which tries to manage all the issues.

It's not that the new system would be the same as before but with only a replacement of the previous legislator-politicians with randomly-selected persons, replacing the current elections by a random selection process to put ordinary citizens in those same positions formerly held by the elected politicians. Not necessarily a simple replacement of one kind of decision-maker with another kind who would do the same as before. There would be many differences in the system to make the new decision-making bodies perform better.

There are different possible versions of how it would work, and so there's a need to experiment with this in different forms to find what works best.

. . . comprised of randomly selected people who aren't accountable for the decisions they make, . . .

Legislators now are not accountable for their decisions, except in the sense that they must get re-elected. But this only means they must continue to serve certain special interests who pay them for special favors, and also that they please the particular political party they belong to. There is nothing to verify that their actions or decisions produced any beneficial result for society, for the voters generally. All they must do is win favor from certain partisans and financial supporters, most of whom want special benefits for their group at the expense of everyone else.

Their only connection to the voters or general public is the speeches they deliver, and performing well at delivering speeches is the only accountability, so that they score higher if they are more talented at performing their speeches. It has nothing to do with measuring their performance in decision-making, or judging the results they produced by their decisions. The voters have no way to determine if their decisions produced good or bad results for them.

. . . the decisions they make, and about half of whom are probably below average in terms of education and intelligence.

No, more than half would be above average, because participation would be voluntary, and those above average in education and intelligence would be more motivated to make the choice to participate in such an activity.

There's little evidence that current elected politicians are above average in education and intelligence, except in the sense that

• many of them have a degree in something (usually law), which doesn't mean much any more, as a college degree is becoming more and more a status symbol only (except in something like the natural sciences, engineering, etc. (which are testable)), and we're approaching the point where most graduates are just as incapable of passing a real test of their knowledge as the average non-college-grad is;

and in the sense that

• they gain knowledge of certain issues, of course, over many years of being re-elected, in the debates and speeches in the chamber, and in campaigning, but such information or knowledge would also be acquired by the randomly-selected citizen decision-makers, as those issues are put to them to deliberate on, and they would become experts on the particular subject matter, just as jurors in a criminal trial become experts on the facts of the case they are hearing;

and in the sense that

• they are good at giving speeches to win votes from the populace, or the ability to impress and dominate listeners who have to listen to them as a passive audience, but this only indicates their talent at manipulating the crowd, and is not a measure of their knowledge and intelligence, as charismatic ability is not based on education and intelligence, but in most cases on an innate ability to speak well and manipulate their listerners, or in some cases on much practice and training to develop that one skill .

These talents or assets of the elected politicians, such as they are, give no indication of their ability to think clearly and intelligently and reach thoughtful conclusions. At best, they indicate an ability to communicate effectively, but this is easily abused toward the goal of dominating and gaining approval and submission to their will, rather than that of producing net benefit for the community.

In theory, it might be OK to create a system run by those who truly can be tested and can prove they are more knowledgeable and educated. However, that's obviously not what we now have. And probably better is a system allowing everyone to participate, but one where superior knowledge and education would play a critical role, so the process would promote more learning by everyone, including some who are below average but want to learn, while those who disdain learning would choose not to participate.

But how is it that the only ones competent to perform this function have to be charismatic speech-maker demagogues? What is it you like about politicians whose main talent is to manipulate a mob of idiots with their speeches? Why do you want to make that talent to manipulate a requirement to be a decision-maker?

I like the fact that I get to vote for my representatives in parliament, and as a result, my representative is accountable . . .

That's only theory. Usually you have 2 choices (some elections maybe 3 or 4), and these are dictated to you by a system which is designed already to give you a very limited range of personality types -- they must have close ties to privileged and wealthy and powerful interests, not average persons struggling to survive. From the outset a good 70 or 80 or 90% of the population is excluded from any participation in this class of elitists, so that most of the choosing has already been done for you long before you have any chance to make any choice of your own.

Any feeling you have that any of them would be "accountable" to you is only a feel-good illusion which gives you good vibes. Even with the limited choice you're offered, you have almost no way to determine really which candidate is going to perform according to what you want. It's only their speeches which impress you, not their performance in decision-making to produce the tangible results you want to see in society.

. . . my representative is accountable to their electorate/state.

No, s/he's accountable only to a system dominated by the rich and powerful, not to average voters who have no power to choose anything other than from a limited list dictated to them, and to which they can mark their "x" by this name or that, after 99% of the selection process has been done for them by a system they have no control over.

They have something to lose if they do a bad job.

But "bad" according to whom? Not citizens in the bottom 90 or 95% who have no privilege or power or wealth. It's only the wealthiest campaign contributors who have any control over the political contenders who successfully fought tooth-and-nail to rise to the top of the heap and gained enough power to have their names publicized and put before the populace -- their wealthy contributors have some power to pull the plug by withholding future donations if a politician does a "bad job" in getting those special favors for them. They're the ones, not 99% of us, who decide what a "bad job" is, and maybe a few other power elitists who could threaten them in some way by exerting pressure on them.

And even if average citizens/voters had some way to threaten the representative, they have minimum access to the mechanics of the system to judge if the representative really produced a desirable result in the wheeling and dealing among the power-brokers. Even if they know so-and-so cast a "yea" or "nay" on a certain measure, that usually tells us nothing about tangible results later, or about many alternative measures which might have been better than the one voted on, or about other votes taken in committee which didn't get publicized and yet were even more important in changing the outcome. The average bewildered voter is only guessing when s/he thinks a politician served their interest -- their superficial method of rating the politicians individually, from the TV ads and sound bites and speeches, has little to do with seriously measuring how well they did or comparing one politician's performance to another's.

Your alternative is to randomly select those lawmakers from "a mob of idiots" who are . . .

No, the average ordinary citizens do not have to be the "mob of idiots" the present system creates with its campaign rallies and speech-making circus atmosphere.

A "mob of idiots" is a one-sided partisan audience of Blue or Red fanatics driven by slogans and impulses and symbols, cheering on their champion who manipulates them by telling them what they want to hear, or promising whatever necessary to the select interest group. The better system we need, using ordinary citizens to make decisions, would be a process of dialogue to consider all sides of each issue, with opposite sides listening to each other and questioning each other in order to find the real answers, or solutions. The "mob of idiots" is what we create in the present system of not having that kind of reasonable dialogue process, and instead having elitists manipulate the masses and herd them this way or that with their dog-whistle speeches, rather than promote thinking and truth-seeking.

When the decision-makers are doing their job through a thinking and truth-seeking process, they are no longer a "mob of idiots" even if they are the 99%, or the non-elitist ordinary citizens.

. . . who are accountable to no-one and . . .

Better to be accountable to no-one rather than to the narrow-interest campaign donors and elitist power-wielders and party bosses our current politicians are accountable to, which means the new system would be a move away from this current bad form of accountability, and a move toward a more genuine form of accountability.

There are different kinds of accountability, which could be experimented with in different forms of procedure. One approach is to increase the participation to the point where everyone who wants to participates in the decision-making, in a vast number of small decision-making bodies, in which case it's your own direct participation which ensures that your interests play a role in the process, rather than relying on someone else to "represent" you and be "accountable" to you.

But also, if the process relies on a limited number of participants, selected randomly so most citizens do not participate directly in the decisions, then the number of them still has to be large enough so that all the interests of society are found among the participants, meaning the decision-makers will pursue all the same interests as the general population. Trying to make it so they're inclusive and representative of all the interests of the society would be difficult, but they would be more representative than what we have now, where it's a guarantee that the lower 90% of society is excluded from the picture and only the top 1-10% has any influence on the decision-makers.

And, there can be different ways to reward those who perform well, assuming their performance can be measured in some way. That's another matter for experimenting, to see how there might be a system of rewards or penalties based on performance. Obviously there is no serious system now incentivizing the politicians to act in everyone's interest, but only to the benefit of an elitist few.

. . . accountable to no-one and stand to lose nothing by doing a bad job.

Obviously the current crop of elitists and speech-makers lose nothing as a result of the bad job they're doing. They're evaluated only on how well they deliver special favors to their contributors, and on how well they perform in manipulating voters and displaying their charisma in the beauty-contest electioneering spectacles, where their good or bad job (mostly bad) plays no role or is obfuscated by their good or bad performance in the speech-making contests.

Where is the evidence that these pundits are more knowledgeable in science, technology, economics, history, etc.? They're never tested. It's easy for a good speech-maker to bullshit his way, yet having his head up his ass even worse than the average citizen who lacks the talent to fake it.

The people I personally vote for are certainly more knowledgeable in those subjects than the average citizen.

You have no evidence for that. Other than knowing the number of this or that bill being voted on, and other legislation information easily learned by any participant involved in the wheeling-and-dealing, there's no evidence that the politicians have a higher level of knowledge. They are immune to having to take any test to demonstrate what they know. Occasionally, when they are asked to display their knowledge, they fall on their face and show their real level of ignorance, because they're accustomed to mostly faking their way, which the system makes easy for them.

(Although it's true that longstanding KKK-member ("Exalted Cyclops" of his local chapter) Robert Byrd, Senator of West Virginia, did have some extra knowledge of history, but that was an exception -- and even so, his foremost talent was speech-making, not higher knowledge.)

On top of that, they've also spent a long time learning how government institutions work, . . .

That's partly true, like a crafty criminal figures out how to manipulate factors of crime, the clever planning, casing the building, who to pay off, and so on. But becoming an expert on how to manipulate a rigged system, or on how to rig it even better, is not the kind of learning we need from our decision-makers.

. . . how to build a consensus with people who have conflicting agendas, . . .

No, that's not what they're good at. Their learning is on how to jam through their limited agenda in order to satisfy their narrow-interest supporters such as wealthy campaign contributors. They are far better at suppressing any opposing agendas than at building consensus. Politics is a battleground where warfare is carried on to crush the other side, not a consensus-building process. It's those who shut out the other side and are good at rallying their own troops and stomping their enemies who win the battles, not those who engage the opposition in a process of debate and truth-seeking to reach understanding.

. . . and they are willing to arrange their lifestyle around the extraordinary work commitments that come with the job.

It's true that successful power-hungry aggressive crusaders out to dominate others probably have extra talent for adapting to the demands of the job, to mobilize and marshal their forces, to maintain their power base and crush those who stand in their way. It's true that they show extraordinary commitment and perseverance and stamina in their pursuit of power. And it's this aggressiveness and ability to dominate through thick-and-thin to force their program onto others which is their main asset, not their knowledge or talent for consensus-building or conflict-resolution or problem-solving.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Anyone who thinks 'citizen' rule on the scale of the USA is a good thing should come to Seattle. Or read up on the French Revolution. Or the Russian Revolution. Citizen judges? Right.

The Scopes Trial.

The federal judiciary is biased as it is.

The idea of an independent judiciary is difficult at best. It tries to get around rule by a central legal authority in a person or group and is always flawed.

Look at Iran where the top cleric can over rule anything in the country. That is what the founders tried to prevent. Flawed humans will always make flawed systems. The question is how best to limit the problems to a minimum.

#### Bigfella

##### New member
What do you think will there still be doctors in 15-20 years? I watched on не how a robot operated some Asian guy on his gums. It was about 3-4 years ago, now I suppose robots are even more advanced.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
What do you think will there still be doctors in 15-20 years? I watched on не how a robot operated some Asian guy on his gums. It was about 3-4 years ago, now I suppose robots are even more advanced.

Robots (and AI in general) can handle the common cases. They can't handle the oddball cases. In not too much time I expect computers to take over a role rather like a physician's assistant--do the easy stuff, call in the human doc on the puzzling stuff.

#### Coleman Smith

##### Member
"What will be some new jobs of the future?"

Sex workers.

Machines are just not going to replace them.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Although there is some AR and VR right now, I see rooms for such will become common in the very near future as we find ways to replace in-person necessities bringing remote interactive and supportive functions to practical and even superior implementations. Hell MIT, Harvard, U W and UC have been working this since the late eighties.

I think we can create virtual environments right now to replace stadiums and such at much lower costs and use of resources. I've seen how rapidly group knitting features are being added to virtual communications. This leaves me with much anticipation of other community enhancing experience elements we'll add in the near future.

I even expect much research going into holographic methods towards the community experience element which support sports, concerts, theater etc.

We're going way past electronic transportation all the way to electronic social environments. Yeah for covid-2 ne 19.

Really if we concentrate a little more on feed back scaled up for large groups experiences can be as real as the actual sweaty thing we are so nostalgic to do now. Add a little bit of electronic pheromone recreation and who will know the difference.

Robots substitutes never going to happen in quantity. Much easier to replicate electronically touch and feel experiences based on mapping existing imagery models.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Professional demonstrators. Got a cause? Hire a pro to make your point.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
"What will be some new jobs of the future?"

Sex workers.

Machines are just not going to replace them.

You missed the keyword "new".

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Professional demonstrators. Got a cause? Hire a pro to make your point.

Professional demonstrators is a very old job dating probably back to the first civilization and continuing until now. There are even professional mourners that are hired for funerals in some cultures.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Then there are actual new and improved things people seem to ignore, even here, on a thread meant to identify such.

- signed

Sitting Duck

#### DBT

##### Contributor
The basic idea of automation seems to be about reducing the cost of labour, far fewer employees, wages and benefits to be payed, which means lower running cost, higher productivity and increased profit margins.

#### Bigfella

##### New member
What do you think will there still be doctors in 15-20 years? I watched on не how a robot operated some Asian guy on his gums. It was about 3-4 years ago, now I suppose robots are even more advanced.

Robots (and AI in general) can handle the common cases. They can't handle the oddball cases. In not too much time I expect computers to take over a role rather like a physician's assistant--do the easy stuff, call in the human doc on the puzzling stuff.

But isn't it possible to substitute humans by AI completely? Not just for easy stuff but for all kind of health care.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
What do you think will there still be doctors in 15-20 years? I watched on не how a robot operated some Asian guy on his gums. It was about 3-4 years ago, now I suppose robots are even more advanced.

Robots (and AI in general) can handle the common cases. They can't handle the oddball cases. In not too much time I expect computers to take over a role rather like a physician's assistant--do the easy stuff, call in the human doc on the puzzling stuff.

But isn't it possible to substitute humans by AI completely? Not just for easy stuff but for all kind of health care.

Not yet.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
What do you think will there still be doctors in 15-20 years? I watched on не how a robot operated some Asian guy on his gums. It was about 3-4 years ago, now I suppose robots are even more advanced.

Robots (and AI in general) can handle the common cases. They can't handle the oddball cases. In not too much time I expect computers to take over a role rather like a physician's assistant--do the easy stuff, call in the human doc on the puzzling stuff.

But isn't it possible to substitute humans by AI completely? Not just for easy stuff but for all kind of health care.

The 'hard stuff' is the diagnostics. Once the problem is known, the 'cure' is pretty well spelled out and routine. There is a diagnostic program (simple decision tree programming not AI) that has already been shown to be better at diagnosing than most doctors... at least that is the claim made in an article I read a while back.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But isn't it possible to substitute humans by AI completely? Not just for easy stuff but for all kind of health care.

The 'hard stuff' is the diagnostics. Once the problem is known, the 'cure' is pretty well spelled out and routine. There is a diagnostic program (simple decision tree programming not AI) that has already been shown to be better at diagnosing than most doctors... at least that is the claim made in an article I read a while back.

The AIs are better than the docs at the routine stuff. The AIs can't handle the cases that don't fit.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Job losses due to automation are a result of profit maximization through efficiency. But maximizing GDP should not be society's primary goal.

Air travel is cheaper than ever, but wasn't it more pleasant when stewardesses had time to chat with us, and served us drinks for free? Interacting with store employees is a good experience for near-hermits like myself: I'm quite happy there are no automated checkouts where I live.

Many of us complain that "Momma-Poppa stores" are disappearing; yet we drive to Walmart's or such where beans are 4% cheaper. We complain about phone menus, but the company might have to raise its prices if it offered better service. Shareholders wouldn't like it either.

In olden days, service was often better, if more expensive. Labor unions helped, often forcing businesses to be not only pro-employee but sometimes even pro-customer. But now we are in the Era of Hyper-efficiency.

The U.S.A. is a very prosperous country by many measures; if money (or GDP maximization) brought happiness, the U.S.A. (or at least the portion above the poverty line) should be very content. Yet listening to my American relatives and watching YouTubes, I get the impression that many Americans, even with moderate or high incomes, are anxious and often discontent or even angry.

Maximizing GDP should not be society's primary goal. Until policy- and opinion-makers embrace this creed, our trajectory will continue on a misguided course.

I'm afraid my comments are not in the spirit of this thread: who wants to pay more for gasoline so we can watch some teenager pump it for us? But some suggestions in this thread are silly, or ignore the pace of automation.