Parlement

  • 16/04/06 13:56 <lpc1998>

    [top-politics] Fwd: To whom the country belongs?

    Forwarded message -———-

    From: lpc1998
    Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:52:12 -0700
    Subject: Re: To whom the country belongs?
    To: “top-politics” <top-politics@googlegroups.com>

    echarp(1): To whom the country belongs?

    ==========

    If the country belongs to the People (in this context, the People means all the citizens of the country as an entity), then there are political consequences arising from this belief.

    However, before we discuss these consequences, there is one issue we need to determine first: Does each citizen so long as he (including she) remains a part of this entity called the People have the same and equal rights of ownership of the country as each and every other citizen regardless race, religion, social status, wealth, age, ability, intelligence, etc,?

    ===========

    [echarp]: “First of all, ideologically I would speak about happiness and its pursuit, which is our goal in life.”

    [Eric]: Are you saying individual personal happiness is one of the fundamental rights of the people?

    [echarp]: “In that context, freedom is important (freedom ends where the freedom of
    others begins), because

    If one take bad decisions, then he will most certainly be the first to suffer about it. Of course us being charitable, we will then try to help
    him out if he so wishes. …"

    [Eric]: The formulation “freedom ends where the freedom of others begins” can be quite problematical. What would happen, if one of the “others” claims excessive amount of freedom? For instance, does he have the freedom to rape his neighbour’s wife or daughter, since his neighbour’s wife’s and daughter’s freedom ends where his freedom begins? Or wouldn’t it be better, in the interest of society, to deny any freedom to rape regardless of the freedom of “others”?

    [echarp]: “…. But there is still a right to idiocy!!!”

    [Eric]: But “idiocy” is not a right. It is a mental condition of people; some have it most of the time while others may have it some of the time. Nevertheless, all of us do suffer idiocy at one time or other.

    [echarp]: My conclusion? Personal freedom is the basis of my political thoughts. Whenever group of individuals organise themselves, I prefer free association and the right to secede. Just like in the Free Software world really.

    This is why I’m devising such a system as parlement (http://leparlement.org), and before that, VeniVidiVoti (http://vvv.sf.net)

    [Eric]: Does the right to secede include the right to breakaway from a country and form an independent nation contrary to the constitution of that country?

    [echarp]: Nations? Countries? Well, personally I would prefer panarchy, which is quite original and possibly impossible :-) It relies on the choice of each individual, and would try to allow all and any system, democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy. Only one requirement, you must accept the
    existence of those other systems!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

    [Eric]: Would panarchy in reality be the breaking of a country into many countries violating the territorial interigty of nations?

    Best Regards
    Eric Lim (lpc1998)

    Yahoo! Groups Links

  • Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 19/04/06 17:49 <Magnus>

    (f)! Nothing else can be accepted.
    As a democrat all other alternatives are less favourable.

    And when it comes to how the people shall rule, nothing better than direct democracy (meaning 50% +1) in all questions, is shown so until then, I stick with direct democracy.
    The problem of tyranny of the majority should be handled by rules for self determination.
    Also these rules have to be decided upon direct-democratical. On top of this there need to be a bill of rights that should be impossible to decide over, even for the majority.
    These rights should be so basic and clear that they never have to be changed. In that way nothing that can harm the individuals strongly can ever be decided by any majority. (The need for bill of rights is normally realised even by representavist)

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 28/03/06 04:04 <lpc1998>

    [top-politics] How democratic is SD2? #01

    Thank you, Mark, for your interesting comments.

    You have stated, among other things, that “SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.” This is very interesting indeed as a democratic proposition. I have only a vague idea of how SD2 works or will work in practice. Would you like to explain how decisions are made through SD2 in a community of, say, 1,000 persons where 1% are very intelligent and capable, where 80% spend most time and energy on work, family and personal entertainment and where some of the aforesaid 1% and the rest are politically active? Btw, are you agreeble to democracy being defined as the Rule by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say in all matters concerning the country and the people? If you do not, please state what democracy means to you personally. Yes, I have noted you have given various dictionary definitions of democracy. Best Regards Eric Lim

    Mark <parashakti108@yahoo.com> wrote: —gale wrote:

    [Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we are

    actually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without having in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."

    [Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: the
    sovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest level of authority in the country. Having the highest level of authority means the people have the final say on all matters concerning the country and people.

    M: (interspirsed comments:) -—————————————————- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
    democracy
    Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
    Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
    Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy [-M: dEmokratia = people + rule]

    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority [-M: In practice, democracy has usually been majority rule because this is the algorithm easiest to impliment.]

    b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly… [-M: Ancient Athenian democracy and FAILED French direct-democracy during the French revolution are examples of this.]

    …or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections [-M: I call this ‘democratic-republicanism’ and SD2 is an example of this.]

    2 : a political unit that has a democratic government [-M: A political unit organized by SD2 would be a ‘democracy’. It would also be a ‘democratic republic’.]

    : the common people especially when constituting the source

    of political authority [-M: The source or authority in SD2 are the participants. SD2 is less sensitive to poorly informed participants voting for underqualified representitives, so I see no reason why even children and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common people’ to the extreme.]

    5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges [-M: In many democratic-republics, class distiction does matter. In the USA, most elected federal officials are rich and/or of ‘high’- birth. SD2 is intended to remedy this problem.] -—————————————————————-

    E: The immediate question arising from this definition is that how

    do the people exercise their sovereignty and make decisions as the “people” is not a single organism with one brain, but made up of numerous individuals. So this implies majority decision which at the very least is 50% + 1 and the right to vote. So in practice, the sovereignty of the people = the sovereignty of the electoral majority."

    M: This is how it has been, but it leads to Bushmonkeys getting elected. :(

    E: The reason is in the fact that people legitimate 50%+1. Though,

    as long as we are creating completely new approach towards politics, we can not take something arbitrary stuff for base. One more thing. There is a referendum in Monte Negro for independence. If 55% of population says YES, than MN will become independent. If there was 50%, as long as that is not big majority, those who loosy might use power to make that decision invalid.

    -M: If a voter can elect a representitive, why can’t the representitive elect a representitive? Why can’t this process continue ad infinitum algorithmicly?

    This is the basis for the PageRank algorithm which is the basis for SD2.

    Eric, why do you think that first-order algorithms(in-degree, counting) are the only way to process voting data?

    [Gale]:"But Eric. Why do you find this be democracy? Imagine next thing.

    I own/control whole mass media. Something like Saddam had in Iraq (you know that Saddam is declaratively democratic leader of Iraq? People voted for him, etc.) So, as long as I can interpret political reality in a matter I want to, I can people make love me. Feel dependent on me. …."

    -M: Agreed, there are a lot of lemmings and suckers out there.

    […]

    I agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the existing
    political system that allows the incumbent President to create such a political reality with impunity and in keeping the majority of the people extremely ignorant of their political choices or effectively denying them such choices. Though, we have to dig it a little bit more deeply to see the whole structure of power that lies behind presidents decision. I belive that we will notice power base is not in the people, but somwhere else. :- )

    -M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.

    [Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way America will

    have to fight on its own land? How shall Jane vote about this question? What are the facts that make her vote so? Remember. She can not know everything. She can not have the whole picture. And she know that. So, she has to trust to the people she do not know. The people such as Bush is, Kerry is, Nader is, or some political assholes who are in the process. Those who are not in the process, can not know enough to be valid reference."

    -M: Fortunately SD2 can be used to create a hierarchal statecraft community where the common person and the bottom ranks are not expected to be fully informed and competent politicians.

    Fully agree with you that it is preposterous to have referendums

    for every single political question or “policy” and that the average citizen does need a competent political representative to serve and not to rule.

    Cool
    -M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists would have ranks, and could have regular meet-ups with those of a similar rank. And the SD2 algorithm makes for rapid upward and downward mobility within the hierarchy.

    […]

    The problem of poor quality voters making horrendous decisions on
    important matters could only be resolved by the political education of the voters. Such political education with the overall functioning of the new political system must enable the voters to elect competent and trustworthy representatives to make good decisions on their behalf.
    Personally, I find it totally unacceptable, on one hand to keep
    the average citizens politically ignorant, confused and incompetent and on the other to rob them of their rights as co-owners of the country on the excuse that the average citizens are in “reality” politically ignorant and incompetent incapable of making big important decisions for the people and country.
    So the political education of the voters is a core issue in the
    new political system.
    Do our views converge here at this point?
    -M: No. Finding the right representitives algorithmicly makes the point of voter education MOOT.

    I would rather that the citizenry be educated and informed than not. But if the right decision makers were in place, what would be wrong with the commoner imposing ignorance on themselves(as they usually do)?

    What I do see is tat nobody knows everything. So, we need the

    system that will make possible to those who know about some particular issue to make decisions for the societies best interest. That is the story about trust networks, influence networks, Marks SD- 2 and so on. That is the way I support.

    M: :)

    [Gale]:"So, is this democracy? Is democracy the idea that majority let

    some informed man with reputation to make decision? Or is that false democracy, we have to eliminate? To eliminate anything between uninformed 50%+1 majority and political decision? What is so cool about that Eric? I do not find anything cool about it."

    I do agree with you that there is nothing inconsistent in a
    democracy where the majority let some informed and competent men with reputation to make decisions, PROVIDED THE DECISIONS ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    For the decisions to be made in accordance to the Will of the
    People, at least the following conditions must be met:
    a The political representative(s) must be freely elected or
    chosen by the people;
    What does it mean, freely?
    -M: SD2 can be used to organize a political party, or an entire country. Either way, the participants would have a much wider variety of representitives to choose from. (With SD2, one could choose from most of the population.) This seems about as free as it gets.

    b The decisions must be made for the good and benefits of the

    people and country; and

    Who is the one who decides something is good? What I can notice is
    that we need new entity we will find be satisfactory for this.

    -M: With SD2, everyone knows who the top ranked people are, and who their main competitors are. Debate at the top level over what is good would be complex, and I imagine that this would create rapidly changing ranks where the more trusted and competent would rise. Those waching the debates could shift their votes in real time.

    c The decisions must not be made for the good and benefits of the

    decision-maker or of his backer or controller at the expense of the people or country.

    How to make it possible and sustainable? That is the question.
    -M: It comes through accountability. Make those at the top accountable to the statecraft community as a whole. With SD2, a policy maker can lose rank for no apparent reason whatsoever.

    This is where the core of the problems of the existing political

    system lies. Otherwise, there is no need for a new political system.

    __________________________________________________Agreed.
    -M: Yes, and this core problem has a solution – SD2.

    [Gale]:"Let me say something else. I do not link democracy to things like

    50%+1. I do not link the concept of true democracy to numbers, but to the idea. What is that idea? I wont talk about the virtual concept of the people, as long as it does not make too much sense when we are dealing with concrete things. So, I will say this:

    Democracy is the political system with completely decentralized
    political power.[…]

    -M: The legislation is somewhat decentralized(though voters don’t have all the choices that they should.)

    But the administration can be very centralized.

    SD2 has a feature that I call “adaptive decentralization”

    1. If people vote mostly for those they know, this can lead to a highly distributed political structure – communitarianism.
    2. If people vote for mostly those who are regional and/or mid- hierarchy, this creates a decentralized republic – confederacy.
    3. If people vote mostly for the higly ranked(but not the top ranked) this creates federalism.
    4. If people vote mostly for the top ranked, this creates a centralized unitary republic.

    […]

    Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by "political

    subjects" and “political objects”?

    Are you advocating a political jungle where the fittest survives?I am advocating full transparency and opennes. Transparence
    makes good be possible. Opennes makes the best fit to the position they are for. About those who are weak. The fact is that weak exist thanks to the empathy of powerful ones. It is directly related to political system, but to the culture. I belive that empathy and altruism are in our cores and what negates them is need for survival. If that need is acomplished, there is no big problem with weak ones.

    -M: With SD2, a statecraft community would probably have its nose in almost every state of affairs in the government. I think that extreme transparency would evolve.

    “[Gale]: "….. So, let me say what made me act. It was injustice and the

    fact that I saw many bad people leading this world in bad direction. So, I want to open political market and to set some new political principles that will make the new leadership become responsible for their actions. ….."

    [Eric Lim]:“In order to be successful in this endeavour, we need to
    understand what makes leaders bad. What do you think are the reasons for this phenomenon?”
    [Gale]:"It is the alopoietic, parasitic moral pattern, leaders have to
    take in this system, if they want to get to the position of the power. We are talking about machiavellism. So, those who enter to the process, have no great chance to success if they do not obey to the rules of the system. And here comes the problem. They profilate in a manner that after a while they promote injustice as long as in the injust world, they have freer hands to do what they want, to make what is their will. In the just world, they can not do that. They have to give up from many freedoms and why? Why if they like the position they are at? Because of ideals?
    Cmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while, they
    have to give up from these ideals as long as they are to big burden for the political process that happens behind the curtain.

    -M: Why even bother trying to understand it? Just create a system where those who do understand it could peer-review one another, and where the worthy could rise. SD2.

    […]

    In the other hand, you can imagine good guys get to politics. But
    after a while one gets a bullet, the other one gets back because he loves his family too much, the third one gets in the real game of trust and power. If there are some lunatics who are ready and big enough to fight the oligarchy (that is what we are talking about) will get tired, sooner or later. And when they get tired, they will want to keep the power they gained. After all, they did not fight for nothing. Oh. The lunatic could look for the people he will thrust to get into politics. But how much can you trust to somebody else? Ain’t these Bush/Kerry guys much better crew with a dark secrets that bind them?

    Lunatic can get off of the politics? But why? After all, the

    process has profilated him to what he today is. Why loose it? it is against his nature.

    I hope you see the point."In other words, “dirty” politics is the politics of “dirty”
    politicians who are spawned by the existing “dirty” political system. So we do need a new political system that is not “dirty”, right?
    Right .
    M: :)

    “[Gale]: "…. I want to create the political system where the first wont

    be so sure and the last one wont be discouraged. I do not want to see non touchable who do very unfair thing just because they have no natural enemy. I want to make feed back mechanism where responsibility will be encouraged and irresponsibility discouraged. This is oriented to the cattle also, as long as todays pseudo democracy works by the same principles that took socialism down. Where everybody was responsible and none was responsible. In that way, lower human emotions directed the system downward in the same manner todays pseudo democracy takes this system downwards."

    -M: To add: The 50%+1 are not accountable the the 50%-1. If the 50%+1 makes the wrong decision, they drag down the 50%-1 with their error.

    SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.

    shanti
    Mark, Seattle

    SPONSORED LINKS Politics American politics Opensource
    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group “top-politics” on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: top-politics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 13/04/06 12:37 <charles.opensource>

    [top-politics] Re: ... The Future of this List ...

    geoerdeaen wrote:

    —- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “charles.opensource” <charles@…> wrote:
    Well, i am comparatively new to this group;but i do have an opinion on this proposition; as follows:First, my smaller concerns are that:my open-source leanings are inherently opposed to big corporations,such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, or AOL.
    OK. This means Yahoo=Google Right?
    Yes.
    I perceive them as being equal.

    Further; there are numerous smaller domain-names & servers available which can very adequately facilitatethe email-list & bbs communications forums which we seek.For example, I can set up a phpbb BBS-system;with an automated email-list, all with fully functional thread-

    searching,

    and our own web space for this group, under either of these
    domains.
    http://directdemocraticgov.org/http://opensourcegov.us/
    I have to say what worries me. Do not get me wrong. I do not know you. We do not have a common past together.
    I am glad you are speaking your concerns plainly, Gale.

    I did not realize you were the person in position of primary responsibility here. I thought it was Marcus, & i made similar offers to him earlier, privately. I am glad that mystery is now clear.

    I do need to trust you about this issue. If you say do it, that I believe that is the real thing.

    “Trust” is at the center of everything, yes. Nothing can be built in communities of people without “Trust”.

    On the other hand, I have common past with Google and Yahoo. This gives me security I am looking for in this moment.

    These are important decisions.
    I would have the same concerns if i were in your position.

    This is like “a form of warfare” we are involved with. This is “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”. There are “powers that be” which desire to destroy us. I would be similarly apprehensive.

    This gives me possibility to know you betterand to change my opinion during time.

    If this is what you feel that you must do,
    i will not attempt to veto it.
    I will not block consensus.

    With no rush. With many reason. I suppose you understand my concern about this proposal.

    Agreed.

    One more thing. Karl is looking for bigger integration of software for our further discussns. Involving wiki and stuff. I share this idea with him. I supose some other members share this vision with us.

    Wikkis are good. I know this.
    And i do not know if our server is capable of hosting Wikkis.

    I believe it is very probable that they are;
    but that would take at least a month to get set-up, probably. We are a linux-based server.

    I suppose there is some work to do about that.

    Can Google host Wikkis?
    I did not think Wikkis were offered there.

    Work we can peacefully continue after we move/or not move. Just do it steady, peacefully. That is all.

    I suppose i comprehend & support your concerns.

    Charles. Do you possibly agree that we move to Google /no big differecne to yahoo?/

    Yes.

    so we can easily discuss of what we excatly need on some bigger integration system that would be set to some new and secure domain?

    Sure.

    Me personaly think that we really need a domain and stuff, but to get something that is good, we need to go step by step.

    Well; i do completely understand you concern for not trusting me fully.

    But if that trust problem were out of the way,
    i do not think it would serve any benefit to move slow; when most tools are immediately available.

    Old systems can be left functional, for as long as is prudent; while everyone moves discussions to the new forums.

    If problems happen soon,
    then retreat is the best military strategy.
    But that would probably be very rare.

    Back-up copies of all past email or other files should be kept for insertion into any system which eventually we choose.

    These files should be fairly generic/interchangeable so that they can be installed in what-ever systems we eventually choose.

    But once the ground feels solid under our feet,
    we can cut the ties to the old system.

    I really like thinking of all of this in military terms. We are discussing very powerful issues,
    which can benefit the common people of this planet immensely, if we can pull some form of process together soon.

    The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the common people, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.

    It may be good to keep the old Yahoo system in place; like for 6 months or so, just in case where we move to is under the control of people who hate our work.

    But in the mean-time: we have been using a better forum, & we have accomplished better discussion, & we have gotten much smarter, wiser, & much closer to bringing our democratic empowerment process to the world.

    In military terms, & keeping in mind that we are keeping back-ups of our files, even if the agents of evil destroy our forum; we can quickly find another forum, & plug-in our backed-up files there, so that in pragmatic/military terms our information-infrastructure would only be down for a few weeks at most.

    On my server, we have programs which can automatically send an email to you with that days current copy of the entire email list.

    Further, copies of the archives of all past emails to the list can can be regularly copied & saved by the administrator. Same with the PHP-BB BBS system.

    If we go that way,we are reducing any possibility of doing wrong stuff pretty much.

    Caution is very good at the appropriate times in all forms of warfare. And i will not break consensus on this point,
    if that is the way the group decides to go.

    But please remember,
    we are in “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”.

    Our planet & its people pay significant prices
    every day that workable solutions to the worlds problems are delayed.

    Saying that, i leave the decision to you, & the others; respectfully.

    And if we do it properly, we could build something pretty cool :-)

    We all agree on that point, good sir.

    I believe i have spoken my position adequately.

    The decision is yours.

    Respectfully;

    Charles …

    ATB,Gale
    These are links which illustrate the email and bbs programs

    available:

    http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-
    politics_directdemocraticgov.org
    http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-
    politics_directdemocraticgov.org
    http://directdemocraticgov.org/pipermail/top-
    politics_directdemocraticgov.org/
    http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/index.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/features.htmlhttp://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/http://directdemocraticgov.org/generalassembly/http://www.phpbb.com/http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/http://www.phpbbhacks.com/

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 29/06/06 17:17 <illegale>

    [top-politics] Comment to Eric from topic "What can 4 of us actually do?"

    lpc1998 wrote:

    +1[Eric]:Okay, so we have three topics for discussion:1 What does democracy mean to you?;2 What does TOP mean to you?; or3 What are the pros and cons of the delegated vote?I vote for Topic 2. As there are a total of 4 votes, the first topic that gets 3 or more votes shall be the topic selected for discussion. If none gets voted, then we shall have Round 2 of voting and vote on the first 2 topics that get the highest number of votes. If there are 2 topics with the same number of votes at the 2nd place, then Gale shall have the casting vote.

    Hello Eric.

    I have to give an objection up there. You are starting second turn a little bit before the rest of group actually made clear thought about what is up to us actually to do at all.

    So please, lets set first thing first and than go forward.

    ATB;
    Gale

    [echarp]:“The voting process could be continuous. That means that any bodyaccepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but alsothat any vote can be changed any time.”[Eric]:The continuous vote may not be appropriate for the voting of topics for discussion unless we want to change the discussion topic half-way when it loses the majority support.The pros and cons of the continuous vote for the election of a public officer could be another topic for discussion at some other time.[echarp]:“What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept orreject something?”[Eric]:What do I do when there are two major points in a message where I agree with one and not the other?Best RegardsEric Lim

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 19/08/06 22:33 <Markus Schatten>

    [top-politics] FA/DP - some questions & comments

    Dear Lomax,

    I’ve now read some articles on http://beyondpolitics.org, and I find FA/DP a very interesting concept. It’s pretty interesting that we (TiAktiv, TOP) have come to some similar conclusions independently from each other which is another indication that we are on the right way.
    FA-s if I understood right are (in organization theory terms) informal network organizations, e.g. organizations without hierarchy, based on information flow between participant. DP is a system (which kind of reminds me of SD-2 and CLD2) which allows the dynamic building of a hierarchy in a network of people, e.g. defines responsibility and decision rights (if I didn’t miss something).
    So FA/DP seems to be another implementation of the fishnet organization (which Gale and my self like so much to point out :-D )
    Also what I really wellcome is that you point out that the whole organizational processes in some FA/DP organization should be transparent, or better TOP which is one of the main points this group has reached concensus about.
    An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy without focusing on special requirements of special problems. For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”. SD-2 and CLD2 have the same problem, and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part of interest).
    Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this different delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 members, just think how many paperwork this is.
    In the end, FA/PD is a good concept and should be taken into consideration. If you like (since if I understood right you aren’t a programmer) I would propose to use this concept in a possible TOP Information System for try out (other concepts should also be included and time should show which concepts are most usefull).

    Best regards

    — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
    e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
    http://www.tiaktiv.hr

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 13/04/06 19:05 <illegale>

    [top-politics] SV: [top-politics] (Karl) Re: Direct democary - a new era in Swedish politics

    Hey Martin!

    I decided to take focus on stuff that I find it matter the most. In that way, we wont loose a “thread” of discusion. If you find some stuff that matter and I did not focused to that, I will answer it in next mail. OK?

    In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gustavsson

    <martinvaxjo@…> wrote:

    I am asking this as long as I actually do notunderstand meaning ofthis phraze and this phraze is taken as regularjoker answer to allproblems. Say the people and it is all right, youknow.

    Power to the people! Software to the people!Maybe you are considering the senile who are lojal tothe old corrupted system? Well, they are included.They will vote on the old system during the time ittakes to bring in the new. It will probably take about50 years to get rid of the old system.

    Well, everybody who has worked in a project knows
    that
    is a lie. You can start processes parallell. Theambition is more important here. If you are
    elected
    you get funds to support programmers of the opencommunity WHO ACTUALLY DO deliver.
    From whom do you get funds for support? Does it needto be a state, orwe are talking about organization itslef? Is thiswhat you havearticulated enough to support it without hesitationright here, rightnow, engaging 18 members of this group?
    We do not need funds so much of if programmers deliverwithout funds. We have a law in Sweden that gives allparties above 4% a monstous financial support. I recona nice thing to do would be to give money to the peolewho helped us. That´s all.
    No, we use phpBB. As soon as a program exists withopen source code better than phpBB including
    priority
    voting and budget voting. We will use it and
    support
    the programmers.
    But, what is a decision making model you use? Isthat concensus? Thatis the way we in Tiaktiv work + you need to beproductive member whorespects procedure to get right to be a part ofdecision making body.
    I do not know why you are still sceptical. Are youvery old? Democracy is respected by people and we useall kinds of ways to make sure it is as democratic aspossible. Priority voteing, budget voteing etc.Everybody respects to follow some basic rules set bythe members or are locked out. It has happened to oneperson of about thirty people.
    Too few, and probably because of the fact that we
    have
    a membersfee.
    Is that 10? 15? Anyway, what is a trend of yourparty? Are youstagnating? Growing? What are the projections basedon current state?I know these questions are not too popular in mostof the parties, butthese questions are good base for solving problemsthat young andprogressive political options of the World allwayshas.
    Stagnating from 30 to 9 when we decided to usemembersfee. I will now suggest that we take that partaway.
    OK. This is what matters talking from our experience. You see. Tiaktiv had many members and it is actually only two of us. I found out the number of two on action way, as long as passive members I do not find be the members.

    So, a while ago it was 7 of us and after that the number went down, down, down. A little bit up and then down again.

    It makes me ask next thing. What are we doing wrong, as long as something we are obviously doing wrong. We might say that we are working for the future, but the future might never come. We are stagnating and Tiaktiv is loosing its reputation amongst its supporters.

    So, this is the stuff I want to solve. To see what we are doing wrong, what we can do to make these nembers rise and make our organisation become relevant. What we need to change, as long as it is obvious stuff we need to change.

    I believe this core problem is the same to your organisation. Because we can talk about great systems and everything, but if we have 10 supporters the most, then we belong to bad SF writers, nothing more.

    Do you find this stuff be your major problem? Or? Anyway, even if you do not find this to be a major problem, do you have exact plan of how to get create bigger numbers, how to become more relevant, how to actually create a movement (I suppose that big optimisation of political process as all of us do is actually creating global political movement)?

    These are the questions Id like to get answer through all of our discussions.

    Well, we would love such an attempt and the

    attention

    and sympathy it would give us.
    Yet, talking from my experience, people have to feelsome process be anatural thing to protect their interests if theywork properly (suchas amway :-)) if you want them bite your idea.In this moment you have a model that is not used byanyone, the modelthat doesnt have no guarantees. That is notstimulating for others, I bet.
    You speak like you are employed by the establishedpolititians. You could as well be mocking Edison,Bell, and Einstein with those words. I laugh at thosewords. :oD Edison, Bell, and Einstein all changed theway we see things. Why can we not do the same?

    OK. But we can not use that as an argument as long as every idiot can say the same thing. We need better arguments. For ourselves and for others!

    make them sign a legal document binding them to

    the

    peoples descisions or to leave or to pay
    personally
    for the damage done.
    When you say democracy, you mean to decision makingsystem youpromote, right?
    I mean democracy, not politocracy, not aristocracy,not oligarchy, not dictatorship, not unrepresentativepolitocracy. I mean one person one voice, I mean oneperson to decide what the mandate should do for him orher in as much detail that the person wants. Democracyas it was once meant to be in Greece, but added withthe inclusion of as many people of society aspossible.
    How do you mean?
    Exact products that promise is a good way. Moreconcrete resultspeople generaly agree too, you get stronger.Concrete, that is the keyfor wider population. Abstract, that is interestingonly for severalpeople of the world. Not even to philosophers orother fanatasyorinteted individuals.
    Yes you are right, we are working on making a snapshotof the party opinion in diffrent issues so that theparty will have a concrete opinion.
    Is this your strategy in this time? So, you need softvare first? Though, what do you think, is it possible to create fictive model in this time, as long as 9 members is not too big number to play it “virtualy”?

    Well, my dear fellow :-), I guess you did not read

    our

    partyprogram (www.aktivdemokrati.se – Englishsection)with any seriousness, did you?I will still answer our questions.
    I am sorry. I usually scan documents and than I ask.
    Granny, will most probably delegate to a
    polititan,
    organisation or a relative she trusts. Bullshit oragressive behaviour will be moderated and some
    people
    will naturally be excluded from democracy
    according to
    rules set by the people themselves.
    OK. This is if/then/else answer.
    Payed Pete, will rat on spookey polititian Joe
    who
    payed him, if he does not get more and more money.
    Yet. Your organisation would probably collapse afterseveralpromiscutated decision, unless you have much moremembers who with nohesitiation legitimate this model in no matter what.But, thesenumbers are pretty rare. Not big enough to beinteresting. Of course,good way for you is to start working this way, tooptimise yoursystem, to get concrete results out of yourorganization. This leadssomewhere.
    Responsability is a word often used in a faulty
    way.
    Response – abiliy. Think! :-) The persons who have
    the
    ability to respond. Polititians use these words tomake their salaries higher, but in real life theability to respond is often slim. The people are
    often
    much better. A clear example is the recent tsunamidisaster, where polititians acted like shy people
    in
    an eldery institution.puh…that is where my time ends.Anyway, if you are not part of the solution you
    are
    part of the problem.With a positive, creative and open mind all
    problems
    can be solved.
    Yet, you need much faith also :-)
    To believe it must be believable.
    So let´s take off (maybe crash andlearn) and eventually will fly and even go to the
    moon!
    Absolutely!Gale
    I you do reply, Gail please cut out the essentilas!
    Though, what means this Gail? I do not get it?

    ATB,
    Gale

    Ps. This is c/p of its original you can see on:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/277

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 15/05/09 19:58 <echarp> 0 Vote_minus -1 Vote_plus Write
  • 21/11/06 15:56 <Magnus>

    [top-politics] Content added to Wiki

    I have clarified the mathematics for AD-algo.
    Please let me know if something is unclear.
    http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 28/05/07 18:38 <echarp> +1 Vote_minus -1 Vote_plus Write
  • 09/06/06 05:05 <Mark>

    [top-politics] Smartocracy

    From:
    http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/smartocracy-hicss2007.pdf -———————————————————————————————————— Smartocracy:
    Social Networks for Collective Decision Making
    Marko A. Rodriguez
    Daniel J. Steinbock
    Jennifer H. Watkins

    ABSTRACT
    Smartocracy is a social software system for collective decision making. The system is composed of a social network that links individuals to those they trust to make good decisions and a decision network that links individuals to their voted-on solutions. Such networks allow for a variety of algorithms that convert the link choices made by individual participants into specific decision outcomes. Simply interpreting the linkages differently (e.g. ignoring trust links, or using them to weight an individual’s vote) provides for a variety of outcomes fit for different decision making scenarios. This paper will discuss the Smartocracy network data structures, the suite of collective decision making algorithms currently supported, and the results of two collective decisions regarding the design of the system. -——————————————————————————————————————— Comments please.

    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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 18/12/06 15:16 <pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk>

    [top-politics] Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

    Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added some more icons..

    Screenshot avaible below.

    https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046

    Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.

    Pether

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 05/12/06 22:26 <illegale>

    [top-politics] Little report from Croatia

    Hello everybody.

    In last time things where rather intense in Croatian cyber politics. Yet, I have to notice it is 2:0 for forums of Croatia :-)

    First thing.

    Faculty of philosophy with about 5 000 students has rather developed internet community that estimates about 800 nicks with 100 or more posts. Some profesors post there, and they can se open critics from virtual users. At that internet community, as I do remember, all initiatives that came from students, came form that forum excatly. There was a typical example, when history teacher wrote at media some rather suspicious article about Izrael last occupation and when the topic was started, people started to wonder about credibility of that teacher, so he had to come up to that forum (even he ignored it for a while) and try to give arguments for that writings. All in all, we are talking about powerful and influentive network that can not possibly be ignored.

    So, administration tried to close forum for anonyimus users and all those who are not from that faculty, aka they tried to establish control over things that where wrote. But, reaction of people from forum was rather explosive and precise. In continous deliberation process leaders of this ad hoc initiative where adopting arguments from all, some more experienced members obtain important (legal, media tactics, direct action organisation, info about beraucracy, keeping koherence of initiative etc.), so all forum was very fast about delegations, about exact steps and so on. There was some media articles at newspapers, media started pushing this topic more and more, petition was orgnised etc. I was pretty impresed by the whole process where about 100 people succeed to be that organized without any training, nor ad hoc organizational experience, which was really awesome.

    This strong reaction of forum rather soon (I think it was 5-6 days from announcement) made administration give up from the whole thing. What I am talking about is that forum came up to the RL succeeding in protection of its own right to exist!

    So, it is 1:0 for Forum.

    Second thing.

    In the same time at fmsdp.org (youth socialists party) there was a try of media lynch of a user who said she admires Hitler’s power and domination. So, there where several articles, party leader said some things, major TV news had report about it, etc. What I can notice in that story was somebodies interest to quiet up TOP communication and force up autocensorhips that are rather important part of keeping current oligarchical power structure. What is interesting also, a few days before I mentioned to them that media can be interested only into lame scandals, not into things that make people suffer (corruption apheres that come up from forum, very strong oposition to current party leader at TOP, etc) as long as their leader is in good contact to the media owners, so he can watch out what to let go (in oreder of his own personal interests, of course) and that thing excatly happened.

    Though, when this thing started, all forum showed strong support to Moca as long as nobody noticed non legitimate attitude (after all, someones capabilities are not moral category) plus obvious madia/political lynch over that user. Forum stood up and now Moca has full support to press charges to those who started this hoax. What I have to notice is that president of organisation did not stood up for the Moca (who is actually high functioner of fmsdp), but he decided to relativise, instead of standing up for just action, especially as long as his own member was attacked. Racan (president) got down in this all aphere, which means it is

    2:0 for Forum.

    Seems as forums got pretty strong thing in political life, especialy as they notice untouchability for current political tactics that is tradicionaly used. It all leads me to think that TOP decision can be eliminated only by other TOP decision as long as TOP decisions are far more superior and legitimate that non-TOP decisions that still run the political process. It might even seem to be that our politicians and corrupted parts of social establishment got pretty endangered by forum. So, what to say, but that it was actual time.

    Of course, there is a lot of more things to do, but forums reputation in our political life got pretty much up. And nobody actually knows is it possible otherwise due to autopoitetic principle of society :-)

    ATB;
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
  • 11/10/06 00:04 <echarp>

    [top-politics] Parlement Version 0.9

    Photo_356

    Improved look, particularly the voting and writing part. Long posts and lists now truncated. Permanent login. Positioned elements. Search form (though google).

    Anybody willing to test?

    You all already have a login, your pseudo is your mail’s name!

    echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +1 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
    3 messages...
  • 10/07/06 16:11 <illegale>

    [top-politics] Origins of the power

    Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set and enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principles that made such structures powerfull are the principles that lead and orient them and their hiden/unhiden policies.

    The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power. Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain him power in order to politically prosper.

    Todays politics which is non TOP is based on Machiavliestic principles. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical political weapons are in core of these strucutres.

    Though, when we discuss over origins of power, we have to notice influence of such origins on the whole society.

    Dictatorships that are based on brutal force and hegemony apreciate these origins before reason, morality, intelectual independency. In order to survive, dictatorships need to create represion over dangerous values which decreases human freedoms. Due to the fact that intelectual independency enables many solutions that lead society forward, these systems during the time become replaced by those that enable more political freedoms.

    Todays pseudodemocracies in other hand do not enable global public participation which is base of true democracy. Origins of power of these structures are closed lobbies that control public through control of mass media pasivising it and disabling creation of exact political competition. This pseudodemocracy leads to global hypocrisia and decandency. In order to adopt to society, individuals actually accept widely promoted values which means lost of morality that is core of any society survival.

    TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent action sets all of «injust» or hypocritical actions non legitimate, so the political base is much more carefull about crearting power structures that might go against their basic human values. TOP politics thanks to its fundamental features is moral in its core the only product of open system has to be autopoietic in order to survive so these strucutures set moral policies also as long as they are only able to legitimate such decisions.

    By enabling new political paradigm called TOP politics, origins of the power are not based in hypocrycy any more, nor any other form of misleadingbased of non informed structures that enable their legimacy. As long as the strongest power centers do set global policies in favor to their survival and empowerment, the new society standards are expected to be globaly accepted. What are these standards going to be excatly, we can notice by evaluating sets of behaviour and their relevance to political position of their protagonists.

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    Vote_minus +3 Vote_plus New discussionWrite AnswerWrite
    4 messages...
  • 1 / 8 > >|

  • v0.17 Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict