A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, March 9, 2018

IN FOR A POUND


Here is an idea for a party game.  Laszlo Mero[1] reports on a game that has proven profitable for the person that conducts the game.  That person is called the auctioneer and he/she puts up a dollar and announces to the group – usually it works with a healthy number of people – that the dollar is up for auction.  Generally, bids for the dollar must be at least one cent, but it is recommended that bids be at least made in ten cent increments.  So, potentially, for a penny or a dime someone can “buy” a dollar.
          This game was introduced by Martin Shubik and it has been played at social gatherings, but also in psych labs.  And if the dollar was bought for a dime, twenty cents, or so, not much would be noted.  That sounds rational.  But the astonishing fact is that Shubik, as the auctioneer, has averaged a selling price of $3.40.  One time he made twenty dollars. Why?  Well, the above leaves out another rule to the game.  Not only does the winning bidder have to pay the amount he/she bid, but also the person who bid the prior – next highest – bid must pay.
          So, if one bids sixty-cents and the prior bid was fifty-cents, and no more bids are made, both the sixty-cent, winning bid and the fifty-cent bid is paid to auctioneer.  Mero describes the psychology as the bidding goes higher.  This writer is reminded of the saying:  in for a penny, in for a pound.  At the beginning it seems that purely rational thinking goes on.  For example, “I can get that dollar for a twenty-cent bid; that’s an eighty-cent profit.”  But as the bidding goes higher, irrational thinking becomes more prevalent.
          If the bidding is at two dollars, and the next allowable bid is at least $2.10, the person who made the previous bid, of $1.90, if he/she does not make the potentially winning bid, he/she will lose $1.90.  For most people that would not be the end of world – chalk it up to experience and the entertainment value of the game.  But there is more going on; how will the person be viewed by the other participants for “losing” the game or the money? 
“Pride goeth before the fall” – yet another saying.  But this little game tells one something about much more important historical events or developments.  Next posting will describe this quizzical phenomenon a bit more.  It turns out, that the game has something to say about how the nation fell into the Vietnam War nightmare.


[1] Laszlo Mero, Moral Calculations:  Game Theory, Logic, and Human Frailty (Springer-Verlag, NY:  Copernicus, 1998).

No comments:

Post a Comment