[FoRK] Misunderestimating "The" Tea Party

Damien Morton dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Sat Mar 20 15:46:59 PDT 2010

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

> > Again, I'm not arguing that big is always better, but that it's not
> necessarily the case that smaller is always better.
> Absolutely agreed, historically.  The point I'm trying to make is that,
> systematically and all other things being equal, smaller is always
> *potentially* better with respect to satisfaction in aggregated preferences.
>  If you can acknowledge *that* then we can move on to the more-interesting
> questions:  why, historically, has it *not* always been better, and how
> could we arrange things to make it so in practice?
Since, in the mists of time, we started of with multiple smaller "units of
aggregation", and in every region, without fail, those smaller "units of
aggregation" aggregated into larger and larger "units of aggregation", would
you say that the exploration space has been explored and larger units of
aggregation were found to be better than small ones?

More information about the FoRK mailing list