Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 13:08 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 25/11 00:54 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 24/11 15:53 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 22:29 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 10:14 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Latest posts
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 13:08 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 25/11 00:54 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 24/11 15:53 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 22:29 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 10:14 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
-
echarp wrote:
What is the meaning of “O” then?
The right to speak?
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
When I post there, they know that everybody knows what I said. So, you can not play dull in such situatio, when some compromising data is into process. This leads to demand of political base that leaders set their opinion and consequent actions towards things I am mentioning, of course if I am writing interesting things hard to be ignored.
So, they have freed informational channal of FMSDP. They can not manipulate with informations any more, or at least they have not monopoly for it any more. This is a great difference that shows idea of political relevant nformations vs politicaly non relevant info. politically relevant info are only info that matter and by setting TOP you enable there relevant info do their greatest job you can imagine.
Actually, it is revolution I am talking about. Thanks to openness and transparency of info processing.
Don’t we have that already? The right to secede? Isn’t a fork a secession?
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
ATB,
Galeecharp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:33PM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote: > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > The right to speak?
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak!
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Free Software is not democratic.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:33PM -0700, illegale wrote: > echarp wrote: > > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > > > The right to speak? > > I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise. Concretely. In any party you have fine and less fine people. Good and less good people. Smart and less smart people. Corrupted and not corrupted people. If some party was based only on bad and corrupted people, it would never had chance to be legitimated in political market however it is bad. So, bad guys need good ones for their own democratic legitimation. They need excuse that will haze bad aspects of their party.
For that they use media coverup and lack of info flow in general, where they can keep bad guys in ignorance, legitimating their bad actions.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths. And indeed. This process is not one hour job where everything changes. It has much deeper grounds, it is much more fundamental process to be ignored in any way. Though, this what I am talking is only from my personal experience. If we talk about studies, they show that people from forums do not respcet RL authorities much as regular people. In the same time these people are much more interested in hearing arguments.
This is what we could call changing psychological attributes of the people from forums, excatly due to reason where maybe non-TOP authorities wont hear you, but his power base will be eliminated if he keeps be ignorant. In this very time, these non-TOP authorites do change their thouths as long as socialisation process I am mentioning lasts for more than 10 years, having not so small influence into whole structure of society.
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants? What I can notice, if you create politically relevant place (meaning people who have obvious power supremacy in such structures obviously read these forums making them politically relevant places), than any word if it makes sense can not be ignored any more. Not one. If it is ignored, here we get birth of alternative power structutes that will create new non-corrupted supremacy over existing power structures.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak! Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy? ATB,
GaleFree Software is not democratic.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
Signal over noise ratio.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
:-D
A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths.
This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you’ll have an answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Ain’t that what you really want? To be heard?
Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human being might even play like he’s listening, yet dismiss everything right away.
Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more people involved. Politics.
You can not require that someone has an open mind.
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
What is it that you have created? Free speech?
Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it’s all matters of politics, nothing else.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants?
“Some” participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak!
Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
No.
You can not oblige someone to really listen to what you have to say. This is not technical, it’s simply human.
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers.
The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain political power. This is almost a tautology.
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes…
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also is? :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
Signal over noise ratio.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
:-D
A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
Right now I would have nothing against my own newspaper, too.
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
I want to optimize my political work. I want to go to the place where my engagment will matter, the place where the right people will hear and respond. For an example, I might talk about trust networks at any other place but this one. But I would barely get any respond. So, I am lucky this place is open to me, so I can discuss about this very thing and get response.
So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that can hardly be ignored.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths.
This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you’ll have an answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Forum by TOP is much more relevant place. To be more precise. Forum by TOP is the place to solve the problem. The place where all interested sides are participating. The place where every dicision is deliberated by public itself, which is quiet revolutionary concept to idea of open letter in a newspaper. At least, I see it that way.
Ain’t that what you really want? To be heard?
No. I want to get response that will satisfy my intention. To be heard is probably first step in political process.
Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human being might even play like he’s listening, yet dismiss everything right away.
I have no problem with that. I do understand that some people will never (for example extreme lunatics) be heard as long as there wont be interested people in what they are saying. Yet, I do believe in human kind in global. After all it is autopoietic system. I do believe that best thoughts and best decisions for human kind wont be ignored as long as it is impossible duo te reasons I mentioned in our IRC chat.
Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more people involved. Politics.
That is what I find be crucial. The fact that we are talking about political reality and use of our work on that reality. We are not discussing some hypothesis. But politics.
You can not require that someone has an open mind.
I do not require it. But, if somebody has not open mind, we can say he is slow. And the one who is slow, if he is not holding oligopoly which is now the case, naturally wont lead others.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
What is it that you have created? Free speech?
We removed media oligopoly over political context. In fact, this fact empowers free speech, which is the point of it. The point of free speech, as i can notice is not the idea that you can talk around, but the point that you can change the world by free expresion of your opinion. This optimisation of info flow, and bypass of media oligopoly over political context gives you strong boost.
Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it’s all matters of politics, nothing else.
Party leaders may be non touchable, but what is the point of such party that has no political base? And what does actually non touchable mean in that situation?
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants?
“Some” participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
OK. You have to become recognised in any work you do . The same thing is with politics. I have no problems with that. What has been problem was that recognition did not come from people/public, but from those at top. By realisation of TOP politics, that problem is solved.
Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
No.
You can not oblige someone to really listen to what you have to say. This is not technical, it’s simply human.
He does not need to really listen to what I have to say. But, if he can not understand it and if he is a leader of sme fraction, than I can see the problem. Especially if there are more capable ones who could use their ability to really listen and not just capability, but the point of what I wanted to say. If there is whole base that is able to listen and see the point out of it, than leader, if he is not capable will be replaced by more capable. If none of them will be capable to listen, than it might be I am wrong, or that organisation is globally not capable and we can move on, not wasting energy.
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers.
Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you want to see and of course under what criteria..
The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain political power. This is almost a tautology.
OK. Yet, this power comes directly from the people/public. Not from the oligarchs, nor media manipulations. That is a good thing. I like it rather much.
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes.
What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative democratic process?
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also is? :)
OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom of information as base of the whole structure.
ATB,
Galeecharp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
What is not true? That the more popular a forum gets, the more posts will be discarded by most people?
Are you arguing that everybody reads everything???
Don’t you accept that filters will be used???
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
I want to optimize my political work. I want to go to the place where my engagment will matter, the place where the right people will hear and respond. For an example, I might talk about trust networks at any other place but this one. But I would barely get any respond. So, I am lucky this place is open to me, so I can discuss about this very thing and get response.
So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that can hardly be ignored.
OK. Let me try to rephrase how you work and/or want to work.
You want all political organisations to let you come and speak in front of their adherents.
This is what you call being “open”.
Am I right?
What happens when hundreds if not thousands of people want to come and speak?
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers.
Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you want to see and of course under what criteria..
Finally you do accept that some posts will be ignored by many people!
Do you acknowledge that a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers?
Or, yourself, do you read everything in all forums you are visiting???
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes.
What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative democratic process?
Of course. Although it’s unnecessarily byzantine and strongly against Direct Democracy.
But I just discovered on the chat that you are yourself against DD… :(
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also is? :)
OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom of information as base of the whole structure.
Any political system could accept Free Software.
Or is there somewhere in the universe a law stating that a dictatorial country has to ban it???
Oh, and Free Software is not freedom of expression. It’s just one kind of expression, mostly technical.
+1
-
echarp wrote: [...} >ec: What happens when hundreds if not thousands of people want to come and > speak?
-M: Exactly – this is why having rank hierarchies can filter the debate.
People would be encouraged to engage those of a similar political rank. This cuts down on the noise and chatter, and leads to high quality debate on the high end without having to simplify for the sake of the lemmings.This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process. However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers. Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you want to see and of course under what criteria..
ec: Finally you do accept that some posts will be ignored by many people! Do you acknowledge that a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers? Or, yourself, do you read everything in all forums you are visiting???
-M: Rank filtering!
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes. What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative democratic process?
ec: Of course. Although it’s unnecessarily byzantine…
-M: NO! By using an advanced algorithm, SIMPLICITY is created for the voters.
ec:..and strongly against Direct Democracy.
-M: Its RD, and ALL RD is against DD. But what EVERYONE wants is PARTICIPATORY democracy - which SD2-S is more supportive of because excellence is rewarded with rank.
By contrast, with DD, lemmings are given the same power as the non-lemmings.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
I’m tired of your filtering stuff, Mark.
I can do that myself and don’t need any for me unchangable system where corrupt “leaders” filters for me.
I will tell you when I have problems filter out the parts I wan’t.
+1
-
mg: I’m tired of your filtering stuff, Mark. I can do that myself…
-M: With SD2-S, you would set the fiters to your own parameters. Among these are rank filters.
mg:...and don’t need any for me unchangable system where corrupt “leaders” filters for me.
-M: What system would that be? Not mine.
mg: I will tell you when I have problems filter out the parts I wan’t.
-M: OK. So would you like to know what the top ranked are posting? This is why this would be an option.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
OK, we agree on the debate stuff, Mark.
We should about decisionmaking also;
That pageranking delegates can be an option as well as deciding yourself.
No more lemmings talk, just different options OK?And once we are there, start to program a TOP-system that has all these options + the rest this group finds needed.
When can we start the workshop?
+1
-
mg: OK, we agree on the debate stuff, Mark. We should about decisionmaking also; That pageranking delegates can be an option as well as deciding yourself.
-M: The PageRanking of delegates is mainly for PageRanking the proposals that they support.
mg: No more lemmings talk, just different options OK?
-M: The term ‘lemming’ refers to those who we don’t want making decisions directly. (In a country of Nazis or other extremists, we don’t want direct decision making.)
Do you have a better term?mg: And once we are there, start to program a TOP-system that has all these options + the rest this group finds needed. When can we start the workshop?
-M: I will be posting the specifications for an SD2-S based wiki soon.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Hey Mark,
So if I understand correctly the justification for the term lemming is that you don’t want people to make decisions directly under the pretense they may be extremist. This is an utter fallacy. What qualifies you to judge countries as “coutries of nazies or other extremists”? Or even a single other person for that matter? You are not a court of law, which in a democracy is the only institution that may strip a person from their voting rights (felons etc). I’ll leave aside the insulting nature of the word lemming when applied to people, and how this casts doubts on your very motivation as a democrat – indeed how could one believe demo-cracy to be a reasonnable way of governing when one doesn’t believe the demo/people can be reasonnable to start with..
so again, as mg said: “no more lemming talk, just different options ok?”
Serge
+1
-
At 05:40 AM 10/30/2006, Serge wrote: >So if I understand correctly the justification for the term lemming is >that you don’t want people to make decisions directly under the >pretense they may be extremist. This is an utter fallacy.
Mark has really conflated two concepts: his idea that most people are “sheep.” He just uses the term lemming for this.
Human beings are indeed social animals that display herd behavior. I think it is part of what we are, and I don’t think it is dysfunctional per se. Obviously, there are problems if all we do is think and act like everyone around us, but we have evolved to have two sides: a side that follows the herd, the group, and we do this, most of us, with respect to most of what we think and do (as any Martian looking at our behavior would conclude), and a side that is capable of and engages in independent thinking and action.
We actually need both of these.
Mark then wants to deprive of voting rights those who are “lemmings.” So he does not allow, I think, direct voting, all voting must be through proxies, and perhaps through proxies of a certain rank.
This need not be harmful, in itself, but I consider it unnecessary. Lemmings will follow the advice of their advisors, generally, so where they do vote, they will pretty much vote as their proxies would vote. Not only does it do no harm, but it assures the voters that the proxy system is not taking anything away from the, it is only increasing their rights. Now, not only do they have the right to vote directly
- which they currently have in some situations -but they also have the right to assign this vote, which makes it practical for them, if this assignment is delegable, to quickly organize on a large scale. Without elections.It becomes possible, then, to have libertarian-anarchist organizations in fact, but not in ideology. The FA/DP organizations that we expect to arise are libertarian and they are anarchist. But they do not promote a libertarian/anarchist agenda. They are not biased toward destroying government or the oligarchy. Rather they supplement it, and we think they will supplement it so effectively that they won’t need to destroy it.
So this has become one of the major principles behind FA/DP; direct voting wherever possible, which would almost always be the case for issues concerning the voter, direct involvement in deliberation on a small scale but representation for most voters on a large scale.
This confinement of deliberative process to proxies of a certain rank (one of the possibilities, there are others) is safe because it is continuously subject to the consent of the members; remember, they can vote on any issue, including procedural ones. They just can’t automatically get floor time in face-to-face meetings, or post to mailing lists without moderator approval or some other process, unless they qualify.
This restriction is necessary to allow deliberation, which really requires relatively small groups, to exist in large organizations, with nearly everyone represented in it. It only exists, the restriction, as the members approve, voluntarily.
It is not imposed on them by the designers of the system. Organizations would start with full access for every member, and only set up access restrictions as the traffic required it. When meetings become untenably tedious, when mailing lists get so much traffic that members who care still can’t follow it sufficiently to know what is going on, then restrictions become necessary.
And, in an FA, the ultimate protection is that there is no single meeting, meetings can easily fission. The new meetings may or may not have access restrictions, it depends on what those forming them want.
Most of what comes under the BeyondPolitics plan is not something that needs to be created: it is what people can *already do once they realize it is possible. Indeed, much of it is already done, but without the formal understanding and without DP, and without those, we don’t normally see Free Associations maintaining the freedom they had in the beginning as they grow. They become crystallized and various forms of familiar power structures arise.
Those power structures will also arise under FA/DP but they do not become the whole organization. They become the activities of caucuses which support them. So the organization as a whole retains the freedom from the weight of its prior actions that is largely characteristic of new, small, peer organizations. They start out as Free Associations, the BeyondPolitics plan is to make it common knowledge how to keep this even if they become very large.
At least more common than it is now, which is that it is rare.
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
Serge wrote: >So if I understand correctly the justification for the term lemming is >that you don’t want people to make decisions directly under the >pretense they may be extremist. This is an utter fallacy.
L: Mark has really conflated two concepts: his idea that most people are “sheep.” He just uses the term lemming for this.
-M: ‘Lemming’, ‘sheeple’, yes, about the same thing. But the suicidal tone of the term ‘lemming’ really drives the point home.
L: [...]but we have evolved to have two sides: a side that follows the herd, the group, [...]and a side that is capable of and engages in independent thinking and action. We actually need both of these. Mark then wants to deprive of voting rights those who are “lemmings.”
-M: I am a democrat, so I want a majority to have voting rights. And SD2-S is just RD, so don’t use scary language like “deprive of voting rights”.
Booga wooga!L: So he does not allow, I think, direct voting, all voting must be through proxies, and perhaps through proxies of a certain rank.
-M: There is some DD in SD2-S, but it is limited to forcing deliberation of decisions when a threshold of direct voters is in disagreement.
With this threshold approval, decisions are made RD style, by accumulateve voting using the PageRank algorithm.L: This need not be harmful, in itself, but I consider it unnecessary. Lemmings will follow the advice of their advisors, generally, so where they do vote, they will pretty much vote as their proxies would vote. Not only does it do no harm, but it assures the voters that the proxy system is not taking anything away from the, it is only increasing their rights. Now, not only do they have the right to vote directly
- which they currently have in some situations -but they also have the right to assign this vote, which makes it practical for them, if this assignment is delegable, to quickly organize on a large scale. Without elections.-M: All of the DP systems that have been suggested here(other than SD2-S) have given the voter the choice of a DD vote or an RD vote. Why the OR?(I have asked over-and-over again without a satisfactory response).
SD2-S give the voter a DD and/or a RD vote.
Again showing the supremacy of SD2-S over all competing systems by not burdening the voter with designer imposed arbitrary constraints.L:[...] So this has become one of the major principles behind FA/DP; direct voting wherever possible, which would almost always be the case for issues concerning the voter, direct involvement in deliberation on a small scale but representation for most voters on a large scale.
-M: Different systems for different scales? What system is used to decide the scale and the system? Chicken and egg scenario?
Why not just have an adaptive system like SD2-S?L: This confinement of deliberative process to proxies of a certain rank (one of the possibilities, there are others) is safe because it is continuously subject to the consent of the members; remember, they can vote on any issue, including procedural ones. They just can’t automatically get floor time in face-to-face meetings, or post to mailing lists without moderator approval or some other process, unless they qualify. This restriction is necessary to allow deliberation, which really requires relatively small groups, to exist in large organizations, with nearly everyone represented in it. It only exists, the restriction, as the members approve, voluntarily. It is not imposed on them by the designers of the system. [...]
-M: Shouldn’t designers design a system that encourges users to self-design?
This is why I have *ranges where users can nail soft constraints into hard constraints.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA--—-—----—-—-—---—~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en--—---------———--~-
+1
-
At 08:24 PM 11/3/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: I am a democrat, so I want a majority to have voting rights. >And SD2-S is just RD, so don’t use scary language like “deprive of >voting rights”. >Booga wooga!
Electoral representative democracy deprives people of “representation” , unless it is very fine-grained Proportional Representation, and also of “voting rights” as well. Of course one way of looking at Delegable Proxy is as “very fine grained PR.”
The assumption of a classical proxy is that the proxy represents you when you cannot be represented yourself.
In DP, your proxy may vote for you when you cannot vote for yourself. The common-law proxy is exercising a right for you that you could also exercise yourself. Mark is setting up a DP system that divorces the voter from the right to vote directly. Yes, this deprives the voter of the right to vote directly, and this is obvious if his system were implemented in an organization that presently, say, holds meetings and any member may attend and vote.
Standard proxy does not do this. You have to make a rule preventing voters from voting directly. I’d call that “deprivation” of the right to vote.
The fact that voters are more deprived now, in most public, governmental systems, does not change that. Town Meeting government still allows the direct right to vote.
-M: All of the DP systems that have been suggested here(other than SD2-S) have given the voter the choice of a DD vote or an RD vote. Why the OR?(I have asked over-and-over again without a satisfactory response).
Because the right to vote directly makes it easy for the voter to override a proxy selection without cancelling it. That’s one reason. Another is
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-