top-politics

[top-politics] How to improve communication on the list?

illegale — 2006-05-08 14:41:11+0200

Many, many talk about it, nothing has been done about it. OK, almost nothing, as long as E is doing +1/o/-1 stuff in this moment. Yet, there is no organised manner of fighting non transparency of this group. So, let me start with it on this topic.

First of all, OFF TOPIC. If somebody makes some off topic, it would be rather good to open new topic about it if there is no already topic about it.

In that way, other members who do not lurk trough every single theme all the time, will have oportunity to see that and participate there.

Another thing is that I can notice many very simmilar topics all the way, in the last time usually about lemming stuff.

This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.

So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:

Articulate the topic
Start the topic
Invite other members you find would be interested in it
All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move there.
5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new topic or join it to existing topic about it.

Second reccomendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first reccomendation is the first thing to do.

So, what do you think?

One more thing. If E, Mark, Magnus and Markus agree about this, Eric said he would do the same thing. So, is this a good way forward or not?

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

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal

Serge — 2006-09-12 13:53:04+0200

Hey,

Modified the wiki over the weekend, tried to keep the elements while adding some and making it more concise overall. Any comments or reaction?

Best regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Serge — 2006-11-23 23:11:18+0100

Mark,
Your post contains no practical suggestion or constructive part. Failing that, I don’t see a point in discussing any further. It’s really a shame because your very presence on the group shows you have a similar concern to ours in bringing more participation to the political process.
Serge

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

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Serge — 2006-09-25 19:51:15+0200

Hey,

First of all I agree with Gale that defining a system as TOP although slightly redundant, leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation that “open system” would, and remains concise enough to be acceptable.

Secondly, is it right to say that we agree that the aim of this group is for a TOP system allowing for such things as proxy voting, signal amplification over noise (filters), etc to be implemented freely and easily by any TOP organization wanting to?

If yes, why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on leparlement, defining the specifics of the software, and testing it all the while through using leparlement as a platform for discussion/decision/vote??

Regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

echarp — 2006-07-11 13:20:15+0200

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:42:41AM -0700, illegale wrote:

As long as Leparlement is actually copying whole communication that isbeing done at top – politics, we do not either risk anything if we keeptop politics as basic node and Leparlement as an option everyone canactually choose to be primary one.

Just don’t forget that information goes from google groups to the parlement server, not the other way.

google groups => parlement

But you can and are welcome to use parlement, as some of you already do.

Your login is the name you use in your mails, me it’s echarp for example. Do login before you vote, otherwise you will use the “anon” persona which only controls one voice on every issue.

Of course all the votes directly set in mails are accounted for!

Like this one => +1 which is a valid vote used and accounted for.

As the need arise, we can also start other forums in parlement.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Origins of the power

illegale — 2006-07-10 16:11:31+0200

Little intro *

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.

Comparisons *

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.

conclusion *

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.

[top-politics] About TOP

illegale — 2006-07-03 19:11:39+0200

Hello.

I decided to translate part of document in Croatian that talks about TOP, as long as it is in focus of our current action. I suppose Markus should post definition of TOP also to this group and we should look for definitions on open-organisaions.org and simmilar stuff to get as good grounds as we can in this moment for further discussions.

So, here is the first part:

About TOP

The idea of completely TOP (transparent, open, pubilc) political interface where all participants have the direct aproach to all informations relevant for their making of their political decisions ( it was not possible before ), interface that thanks to archieving of all information enables backrouting for any wrong decision and articualtes direct responsibility for political action. Full transaprency and opennes of the political process means new basic political paramethers, new paradigm of politics, we call TOP politics.

Now, I am going to elaborate on the meaning of these new principles.

Full transparency

Full transparency means transparent process of decision making based on publicly reachable information. Every political body needs to have clear mechanism of desicion making, that makes easy to articulate exact responsibilty of every single participant. Every political move, using TOP politics gets archived, so good or bad moves become permanently reachable to the public.

This benchmark means that every single deed, including good ones become permanent capital in someones political reputation. In the same time every single wrong deed becomes permanent blur, so participants of the top politics need to be much more carefull about doing actions that might be wrong. The whole thing enables long term reputation building, where full transparency enables full blessing of such investment.

To make comparison, todays political process can not enable profit based on good deeds, as long as the lack of transparency does not enable it. In the non transparent process that is going on the level of the World, oportunistic moves are the ones that profilate political elite. Wrong decisions or any other political deeds of individal participants due to curtain of non transparency do not attach proportional public support. Sadly, the same thing happens to good deeds, which makes them be non popular for the ambitious ones.

The whole process of today becomes «loan shark» oriented, as long as there is no mechanism that would protect long term investemnts, aka good.

There is the part about opennes, yet i do not find it fine enough to post it right now, so i will make some adjustments first.

ATB,
Gale

[top-politics] Re: What does TOP mean to you?

Magnus — 2006-07-03 16:44:00+0200

Hello, I’m back again after a terrible computer crash just when we where to produce a 1 minute promotion video to be sent in Swedish television before the elections this fall…
But now we are done and I can contiue with this important international project…:)

“There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. "

-My comment here is that we in AD see these things very strict and that such informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages since what’s concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation. Shortly spoken: The privilegue of problem formulae should not be kept by the inner circles.

Ofcourse none can stop informal contacts but the goal and the only formal way when to make important decisions should be fully transparent.
Think of it, what dicussions and decisions can not be held public as long as we don’t speak about nation security? (which we also could discuss since I’m a fan of the one and only worthy american president, pres. Wilson who promoted Point 1 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points ,the total open diplomacy ,in a then very non-mature environment)

[top-politics] Re: An average political forum - top politics

Markus Schatten — 2006-05-23 03:24:19+0200

+1 ;-)

So you did you have in mind to turn this site to our playground to try out some of the concepts discussed here? Would be good to create a wiki to organize top (only for reference – so people could see what we are working on). I think Guy invited us to opolitics (we could easily bind a wiki to that domain and see what happends). What do the others think?

Best regards

[top-politics] Re: Question for Mark

illegale — 2006-05-20 12:31:54+0200

I will say what I am doing and what I belive would be good thing for you too.

As long as there is no way for any success of any political idea if there is no larger support of it, I am forced to look for partnerships even if that means I will have to leave some of my thoughts beside.

This group is actually group that gathers quite advanced political concepts on the World level and I do find it be suitable for my path because I do trust potential of its members.

So, if we focus ourselves on a concept of a larger site/portal that would be big enough to test our ideas, to prove their worthiness with no need of lucky guesses and the stuff, we would gain essential arguments in a shape of not possible to be ignores facts that would help us move on and in the same time we would already have people who could be promotors of these concepts.

This is actually the fastest way of becoming politically relevant, as long as it creates exact touchy arguments and people who will base their work on these arguments in the same time.

That way vs preaching with no exact undeniable data, with no others to make it politically relevant (people do not like to buy stuff that endangeours the whole concept thay already have and these advances are actually removing the whole picture making these advancedd concepts not really digestible).

So, I am talking about focus of action in an order to move faster on enpowerment of the concepts we share. If you would agree to take the same focus with Markus and me and as I can notice to other members of this list, every single one of us would me more efficient and capable for realisation of his own mission.

This would actually mean that we stop arguing on deniable concepts howerver they are good, but to let these concepts prove themselves in reality. Do you think this would be a good thing for your mission enough to take the same path as we do?

ATB,
Gale