Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 01/11 04:23 +1 Re: Openness
- 01/11 00:05 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 20:39 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 19:56 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 00:42 +1 Re: Openness
- 29/10 11:04 +1 Re: Openness
- 29/10 00:35 +1 Re: Openness
- 25/10 21:38 +1 Re: Openness
Latest posts
- 01/11 04:23 +1 Re: Openness
- 01/11 00:05 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 20:39 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 19:56 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 00:42 +1 Re: Openness
- 29/10 11:04 +1 Re: Openness
- 29/10 00:35 +1 Re: Openness
- 25/10 21:38 +1 Re: Openness
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Openness
-
> > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > solve that problem out.
Equal in what ways? This need to be defined.
The right to be equally heard? :)
> > I’m sorry to contradict you, it’s very easy. In a political party, a > > prominent figure will be able to filter almost anybody but another > > prominent figure out of the picture. > > OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > controled by anyone.
A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? Reputation and power are absent?
You can be part of one network yet be expelled from another one, this should be enough for a demonstration.
> > This is politics. And a forum is just another political field where some > > will be able to control the space. > > If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control > the space.
A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :)
> > How? Through filters! Through reputation! With their political force! > > They could even use manipulation, shills or fake personas :-D > > If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be > basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control > anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes > obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a > global trust network.
Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are prominent political figures.
> To be more precise, today when I go to some forum or group, people > already know me. So, my reputation is not dependent on any concrete > site/place, but on the people who use these groups as whole.
There you go. On people. Thus politics apply full force.
> > Forums are new and current political leaders don’t use them. But if they > > did, I think you wouldn’t equate the mere existence of a forum with > > openness. It probably was the same during the appearance of newspapers. > > Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon > as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more, > so free market takes it place.
Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political context. You think you can remove it? ;)
> My firm belief is that informed people generally make better decisions > for the common good. I suppose this is what every democratic mind > believes also.
Newspapers. Internet. Media.
> > Care to explain your vision of individual responsibility? Does it imply > > public scrutiny? Shame? Trials? > > Yes, of course. Politics is not playing video games. Bad politics can > easily ruin whole society. It can send people to die for nothing, to > loose basic human rights etc. So, why should we accept irresponsible > behaviour in such serious matter? Such opinion makes no sense to me. > > Of course. I do understand that in todays pseudodemocracy political > irresponsiblitiy is being apologized in order of giving free hands to > oligarchy. Yet, in some future system, in true democracy, > responsibility is what I conseder to be easily recognised as common > good. > > What do you think about it?
I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible for its decisions.
This is ethical, philosophical.
> > Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions will > > be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself, will you > > feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or of one taken > > by someone else? > > You simplify on wrong principle. If I am part of group of 100 where > these 100 people are obviously against thing I find reasonable, the > fact that I rised hand against their policy means not too much for me. > Communication tool that enables me optimised info flow will empoer me > much more than 1 vote in 100.
You are not responding on responsibility, but moving toward your desire to be heard, to gain political importance.
> To be more precise, I havent been at elections for several years. And I > do not find it be bad thing. My vote did not matter and even if it did > matter, I did not have anyone to vote for.
Not very considerate of democracy… :-(
> > Don’t you agree that ancient Greece had the huge advantage of “working”? > > It also was the first recorded democracy. Isn’t that pragmatic enough? :) > > We can look at that, we can look for its flaws, that is good. In that > way we can build even better systems.
You now are for DD? :)
+1
-
echarp wrote: […] > > OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > > controled by anyone.
-M: SD2-S is controlled by the trust network. And the trust network is people.
> A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? > Reputation and power are absent? > You can be part of one network yet be expelled from another one, this > should be enough for a demonstration.
> > > This is politics. And a forum is just another political field where some > > > will be able to control the space.
> > If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control > > the space.
-M: For rank filtering, rank would be controlling. This doesn’t nessicarilly mean complete control,
just control over the rank of proposals.> A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :)
> > > How? Through filters! Through reputation! With their political force! > > > They could even use manipulation, shills or fake personas :-D
> > If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be > > basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control > > anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes > > obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a > > global trust network.
-M: What else is there other than equality standards? Even rank is equality based becaused its aquired by equal opportunity. And with SD2-S, rank is based on the trust network as you describe.
> > Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon > > as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more, > > so free market takes it place. > > Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > context. You think you can remove it? ;)
-M: Thanx, EC. MG, how else would it work? “There has to be somthing! We must find a way to have superiority without superiority!”
> I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > for its decisions. This is ethical, philosophical.
-M: No, this is the point of democracy. And its the point of democracy to allow for delegated decision making, which is already innate. Hence REAL democracy is RD.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>> Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > context. You think you can remove it? ;)
-M: Thanx, EC. MG, how else would it work?
MG: -Here is no contradiction, a persons reputation will ofcourse help him in debates and when he puts a proposal.
What SD2 will do is to make this reputation more or less to a rule, disturbing the clear thoughts that all issues should be handled with. >> I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > for its decisions. This is ethical, philosophical.-M: No, this is the point of democracy. And its the point of democracy to allow for delegated decision making, which is already innate. Hence REAL democracy is RD.
MG: BS! To allow for delegated decision making is not an issue here as you know.
Why don’t you drop your bombastic outbursts and start to discuss what’s more should be allowed?
Why are you so against democracy in its most pure and direct form, and why should it be banned? (You say that SD2 can handle it but you don’t want to go into detail about it, -because its lemminghood..)
Let ask you one thing:
Do you have a family?
Do you ever have disputes over the breakfast table that has to be decided over in the family?
How do you solve that?
By direct votes?
By delegating everything to the father?
Maybe you do, and that’s why you are so locked on RD. But there are new times now you know. The sooner you realize it, the better.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >> Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > > context. You think you can remove it? ;)
> -M: Thanx, EC. > MG, how else would it work?
>mg: -Here is no contradiction, a persons reputation will of course help him in debates and when he puts a proposal. What SD2 will do is to make this reputation more or less to a rule, disturbing the clear thoughts that all issues should be handled with.
-M: No, SD2-S would make it so the clear thoughts could rise in rank. This is reputation filtering – but it doesn’t filter away low ranked proposals, it just priortizes the higher ranked proposals. Even the lowest politicly ranked people would still have their proposal portfolios accessable by everyone else.
> >> I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > > for its decisions. This is ethical, philosophical.
> -M: No, this is the point of democracy. > And its the point of democracy to allow for delegated decision making, > which is already innate. Hence REAL democracy is RD.
>mg: BS! To allow for delegated decision making is not an issue here as you know. Why don’t you drop your bombastic outbursts and start to discuss what’s more should be allowed?
-M: With SD2-S, anyone can make and vote on any proposal they want to. And they aren’t required to vote representitives (but they are encouraged to – if they don’t, the computer will vote for reps for them.)
>mg: Why are you so against democracy in its most pure and direct form, and why should it be banned?
-M: DD is a fantasy because it doesn’t really exist. Even if there are no legislative reps, there are still admin reps. So why not just make government aligned with this principle of innate representation and have legislative reps as well?
This seems much more logical and coherent to me.>mg: (You say that SD2 can handle it but you don’t want to go into detail > about it, -because its lemminghood..) > Let ask you one thing: Do you have a family?
-M: Not my own, but I am from a family.
>mg: Do you ever have disputes over the breakfast table that has to be > decided over in the family? How do you solve that? By direct votes?
-M: I haven’t seen this.
>mg: By delegating everything to the father? Maybe you do, and that’s why you are so locked on RD.
-M: My father and step-mom would just argue if in disagreement.
>mg: But there are new times now you know. The sooner you realize it, the > better.
-M: Not a good example, because everyone knows that DD isn’t scaleable.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 02:39 PM 10/31/2006, Mark wrote:
>[…] everyone knows that DD isn’t scaleable.
I heard a well-known talk show host on Air America make this statement in response to someone who suggested “why don’t we just all vote directly on issues, it could be done now.”
But what “everyone knows” can easily be wrong.
Direct democracy definitely has serious problems with scale. The problem, however, is not with voting. It is with deliberation. If proxy voting is allowed, voting never was the issue. The problem is what happens when all citizens are equal and have equal access to the floor, to taking up everyone’s time. At some point the process breaks down completely.
Some groups with good group process can make into relatively large sizes, but a few thousand active members, forget about it.
Organizations that large survive as direct democracies only if most members are quiescent. And when they get really large, you will have enough members that there will be enough who will persist to the bitter end. And then what happens is that the organization ends up being run by the people who will endure the abusively long meetings, which is not necessarily the best people to do it. For one thing, it rules out the people with families. If it is a union, it rules out those who have to go to work instead of staying up all night. And so organizations become extremist, because the extremists are the ones willing to put up with it.
All this, though, is in the absence of a functional proxy system. And delegable proxy, theoretically, should allow scalability to just about any conceivable size, by making a self-similar fractal out of the organizational chart. Self-similar and self-organizing, as well.
Again, voting is not the problem. There is no reason not to allow anyone who cares to vote on a subject of concern to them, to vote on it. However, if that is all that there is, then a serious problem is created. To determine what people are to vote on requires deliberative process, if it is not to be abusive. And it is deliberation which is a problem in large groups.
So we expect that the right to take up everyone’s time must be restricted. FA/DP groups address this by simply noting that any meeting has the right to make its own rules for access. There is nothing wrong with restricting the “floor” to a defined group of members, if the members of the group — the whole group — can accept or reject this restriction. If all members can vote on any motion, which includes motions regarding the rules, then any restriction is within the definition of democracy. Essentially, the majority does have the right to protect itself against noise or information overload.
So there are two divisions that FA/DP proposes. The first, described above, is the division between voting rights and what could be called speaking rights. Everyone can speak, but not necessarily to the whole group. The whole group may restrict who has that speaking access. This is how FA/DP can be scalable. It is representative democracy in practice, that is, in deliberation, and direct/representative democracy because of the proxy system. Most votes will be cast by proxies, many of them by proxies who are also active in debate and discussion.
The other division is between communication and control. This is the FA, Free Association, part. FAs are pure communication organizations. Their function is to generate advice only. They do not control. The advice is not the advice of the whole organization, it is rather generated by and through the proxy structure. Proxies advise their clients. The organization as a whole, however, does conduct polls, and polls can indicate advice. The advice is not of the form, “Do this.” It is of the form, “96% of members of the Universal Political FA, voting directly or through their proxies, support the creation of the International Nuclear Anti-proliferation Organization, and collectively they have made $970 million available for this purpose. 2% of members were opposed, and they made $12.50 available for attempting to defeat the proposal. 1% of members explicitly abstained, and 1% were not represented due to failure to either vote or have an active proxy.”
The sum available might seem outrageous. But consider this: perhaps a million people demonstrated in the United States to attempt to prevent U.S. invasion of Iraq. They took time off of work, they travelled, they paid for hotels. It is entirely reasonable to assume that they spent, or lost income, on the order of $500 each. Many others would have supported the cause at lower levels. This is perhaps a billion dollars that could have been made available for the purpose, if such could be organized. Now, a billion dollars is greater than the combined spending of both major parties in a Presidential election. Suppose it were possible to organize this effort, to gain a general consensus to, instead of waving signs pleading with Mr. Bush not to invade, collect the funds (or make them available for collection, which is safer), and then a representative could have met with Bush or with his people and said, “You can do what you want, but if you invade Iraq, here is a check for $1 billion which will go toward funding opposition to you. Forget about 2004, you’ll be history.” Do you think it would have gotten his attention? Would it have been more effective than waving signs in the street?
I think so. But the problem is, people don’t know how to form this organization. If traditional forms are used, it would immediately be co-opted for this or that purpose, and people know that. They won’t trust it. They won’t send in the money until they know how it will be used, and they trust the process by which the decision will be made.
If the organization never collects their money and spends it without their consent, if it only facilitates the collection and approved expenditure but does not control it by majority vote, but only by consensus of those contributing, people could confident that the organization would not be corrupted by those who would take the money and run with it. And I don’t mean run away. I mean spend it according to their own opinions, or according to majority vote.
FA/DP organizations don’t move power by majority vote. Power is reserved for the members, who may delegate appropriation authority or not. Depends on how much work they want to do personally.
Anyway, direct democracy can be scalable to any size, if deliberation is generally through representatives, and chosen representatives are far more democratic than elected ones. If there are elections for representative, there are people who are not represented, those whose chosen candidates did not win.
+1
-
-
-
-
echarp wrote:
> > > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > > solve that problem out. > > Equal in what ways? This need to be defined. > > The right to be equally heard? :)
Equal possibility is the most we can do and I think also the best we can do. This means, no division among user rights. If someone has some rights, everyone has to have them. If one can moderate, everyone can. If one can erease, everyone can and so on….
> > OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > > controled by anyone. > > A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? > Reputation and power are absent?
If I remember correctly it is three or more free traders when we can start talking about free trade. Two set duopoly. Nevertheless, if there is as much free users as you can imagine (everyone), then we are pretty close to our ideal. Or maybe even better to say, weve done it.
> You can be part of one network yet be expelled from another one, this > should be enough for a demonstration.
I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political power. Network has.
> > If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control > > the space. > > A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :)
???
> > If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be > > basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control > > anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes > > obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a > > global trust network. > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > prominent political figures.
Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has its worthiness based on TOP only.
> > Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon > > as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more, > > so free market takes it place. > > Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > context. You think you can remove it? ;)
Why should I? I also have respect to the people who IMO deserve it. And they are superior to those who can not gain respect, at least from my point of view. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with others who have their own lists also.
> > My firm belief is that informed people generally make better decisions > > for the common good. I suppose this is what every democratic mind > > believes also. > > Newspapers. Internet. Media.
You really think newspapers and Internet are the same thing, looking from a political perspective?
> > Yes, of course. Politics is not playing video games. Bad politics can > > easily ruin whole society. It can send people to die for nothing, to > > loose basic human rights etc. So, why should we accept irresponsible > > behaviour in such serious matter? Such opinion makes no sense to me. > > > > Of course. I do understand that in todays pseudodemocracy political > > irresponsiblitiy is being apologized in order of giving free hands to > > oligarchy. Yet, in some future system, in true democracy, > > responsibility is what I conseder to be easily recognised as common > > good. > > > > What do you think about it? > > I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > for its decisions.
Demo has its names and surnames. Yes?
> > You simplify on wrong principle. If I am part of group of 100 where > > these 100 people are obviously against thing I find reasonable, the > > fact that I rised hand against their policy means not too much for me. > > Communication tool that enables me optimised info flow will empoer me > > much more than 1 vote in 100. > > You are not responding on responsibility, but moving toward your desire > to be heard, to gain political importance.
I want to be heard and I want to hear also. These things are rather important if you want to realise your interests. I suppose you do not have problems with the fact I admit I am political being. Yes?
> > To be more precise, I havent been at elections for several years. And I > > do not find it be bad thing. My vote did not matter and even if it did > > matter, I did not have anyone to vote for. > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-(
In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy.
> > We can look at that, we can look for its flaws, that is good. In that > > way we can build even better systems. > > You now are for DD? :)
Always been. :-)
Though, I had to explain why I do not like to be mixed to those who consider themselves being DDers. I like to think that I make some sense.
ATB,
Gale> echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request
+1
-
> > > > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > > > > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > > > solve that problem out. > > > > Equal in what ways? This need to be defined. > > > > The right to be equally heard? :) > > Equal possibility is the most we can do and I think also the best we > can do. This means, no division among user rights. If someone has some > rights, everyone has to have them. If one can moderate, everyone can. > If one can erease, everyone can and so on….
I’m definitely cool with that. Is it part of “Open” or of “Public”? I would says it’s an element of the "Public"’s definition.
Equality does not imply being heard.
> OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > controled by anyone.
A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? Reputation and power are absent?
> > You can be part of one network yet be expelled from another one, this > > should be enough for a demonstration. > > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > power. Network has.
A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of society…
And of course, you can be expelled from one.
> > > If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control > > > the space. > > > > A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :) > > ??? >
A forum is a place where there are politics. Don’t I make sense?
So much so that the first democrats used to deliberate and decide in a forum!
> > > If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be > > > basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control > > > anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes > > > obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a > > > global trust network. > > > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > prominent political figures. > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > its worthiness based on TOP only.
What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet and are not fond of it.
Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change.
> > > Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon > > > as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more, > > > so free market takes it place. > > > > Reputation, that can make one person superior to another in a political > > context. You think you can remove it? ;) > > Why should I? I also have respect to the people who IMO deserve it. And > they are superior to those who can not gain respect, at least from my > point of view. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with > others who have their own lists also.
There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has consequences. For example that you will be heard or not.
> > > My firm belief is that informed people generally make better decisions > > > for the common good. I suppose this is what every democratic mind > > > believes also. > > > > Newspapers. Internet. Media. > > You really think newspapers and Internet are the same thing, looking > from a political perspective?
I think that one encompass the other. Newspapers brought the same kind of political revolution as the net will.
> > > Yes, of course. Politics is not playing video games. Bad politics can > > > easily ruin whole society. It can send people to die for nothing, to > > > loose basic human rights etc. So, why should we accept irresponsible > > > behaviour in such serious matter? Such opinion makes no sense to me. > > > > > > Of course. I do understand that in todays pseudodemocracy political > > > irresponsiblitiy is being apologized in order of giving free hands to > > > oligarchy. Yet, in some future system, in true democracy, > > > responsibility is what I conseder to be easily recognised as common > > > good. > > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > > for its decisions. > > Demo has its names and surnames. Yes?
Sorry: the point is that it is the demo which is responsible.
Do you understand that point? What is so complex about it?
Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…?
> I want to be heard and I want to hear also. These things are rather > important if you want to realise your interests. I suppose you do not > have problems with the fact I admit I am political being. Yes?
No. But I fear you may dismissing what democracy is about, concentrating on your political activism and not on decision making by a group.
> > > To be more precise, I havent been at elections for several years. And I > > > do not find it be bad thing. My vote did not matter and even if it did > > > matter, I did not have anyone to vote for. > > > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy.
Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one where you will be heard by everybody?
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> > > > > You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used, > > > > > and that many posts will be discarded by many users. > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could > > > > solve that problem out. > > > > > > Equal in what ways? This need to be defined. > > > > > > The right to be equally heard? :) > > > > Equal possibility is the most we can do and I think also the best we > > can do. This means, no division among user rights. If someone has some > > rights, everyone has to have them. If one can moderate, everyone can. > > If one can erease, everyone can and so on…. > > I’m definitely cool with that. Is it part of “Open” or of “Public”? I > would says it’s an element of the "Public"’s definition.
I do not know. You might be right, though. Even it could be open if we set principle of openness in such manner as long as openness defines third entity engagement.
> Equality does not imply being heard.
Indeed. I do believe that if we enable natural process going smooth, that such process makes politics cool thing. I see not natural thing that some off topic lunatic has as much space in front of me as some cool person. I do not want it. I want info flow to be the best for me, with no need for “political correctness”. After all, culture comes out of societal autopoiesiss, not out of tight ass.
> > OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not > > dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open > > info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have > > the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me > > interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be > > dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not > > controled by anyone. > > A trust network is free from influence? Politics don’t apply on it? > Reputation and power are absent?
No. No. No.
Difference I am talking about is there is no place for usurpators that anyone has to listen becuase he is at position. In this free process person gets to any position because I want him to be there. Of course, I am talking as a microelement of the large political picture.
> > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > > power. Network has. > > A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of > society…
Why not?
> And of course, you can be expelled from one.
“No man is an island”. No cluster is an island. We might talk about one forum where I was banned. Or about two. But I am rather regular person in Croatian cyber politics. When protagonists of banning come to other places, their deed is considered to gain them bad reputation.
Their influence is not base on small clusters, but on Croatian social network as whole. So, what does it mean if Mirko and Marko decide to ignore me? They are irrelevant if their opinion is not popular among hundreds and thousands. So, they can “expel” me, but what does that actually mean? Looking from the place of Croatian cyber politics, it means nothing to me, but much more to them.
> > > A forum is a political playground. You want to remove politics from it? :) > > > > ??? > > > > A forum is a place where there are politics. Don’t I make sense?
I do not understand you. I use forum for my political agenda. How could I remove politics from it?
> So much so that the first democrats used to deliberate and decide in a > forum!
See?
> > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > > prominent political figures. > > > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > > its worthiness based on TOP only. > > What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but > merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet > and are not fond of it. > > Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry > as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change.
On TOP they can not BS around as they regularly do. So, if they are good at TOP where facts follow them, as long as TOP “remembers” and works on principle “you can fool some people some time…” if they can keep their reputation on TOP, I see no problem with that.
Yet. As long as their political power origins at closed paradigm, lets call it machiavelism, where manipulation, lies and imposture are common principle of gaining poliical position, disclosure process in TOP is something that puts them rather behind in comparison to some novice.
> > Why should I? I also have respect to the people who IMO deserve it. And > > they are superior to those who can not gain respect, at least from my > > point of view. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with > > others who have their own lists also. > > There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has > consequences. For example that you will be heard or not.
Yes. So? BTW, you have to keep in mind that it is YOU who decide whom you are going to listen to. It is your position in network that gives you inputs for what would you find relevant and what is not. As you know, I am not supporter of rough quantification in a process of setting quality standards. I find quality standards need qualitative principles for set up.
Or to look at Leparlament, I am not interested in common arithmetical middle that will say to me what is interesting and what is not, but simmilar thinkers I did notice who can reccomend me whom to listen. The same thing as with music.
I do not follow popular charts, but people I consider to have good music. In that way, no torture of majority is possible and I find it very important, especially as long as in that way usurpators based on popularity are not possible. They are by passed by network itself. They have no influence at my opinion at all.
> > > Newspapers. Internet. Media. > > > > You really think newspapers and Internet are the same thing, looking > > from a political perspective? > > I think that one encompass the other. Newspapers brought the same kind > of political revolution as the net will.
Lets see.
> > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > I think that the whole point of DD is that the demo is responsible > > > for its decisions. > > > > Demo has its names and surnames. Yes? > > Sorry: the point is that it is the demo which is responsible.
If we base system on equality, than there is no other but demo anyway.
> Do you understand that point? What is so complex about it?
OK.
> Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…?
Yes. Why not? You do not think so?
> > I want to be heard and I want to hear also. These things are rather > > important if you want to realise your interests. I suppose you do not > > have problems with the fact I admit I am political being. Yes? > > No. But I fear you may dismissing what democracy is about, concentrating > on your political activism and not on decision making by a group.
I am not calling you to join ME. I am not calling you to support ME. What I want to say is that my general agenda is actually not of your business. If you can find things where we can collaborate, great. If not, too bad. You and me will probably survive it.
What I am offering to you right now is just an introspective of “cyber” politician. Something that has sustainability and something that is more and more popular in Croatia these days.
You can use it if you like and if it makes sense to you.> > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy. > > Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one > where you will be heard by everybody?
Participation is the essence of democracy, not mere voting.
ATB,
Gale> > echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request
+1
-
> Difference I am talking about is there is no place for usurpators that > anyone has to listen becuase he is at position. In this free process > person gets to any position because I want him to be there. Of course, > I am talking as a microelement of the large political picture.
The net and networking in general are changing the old pyramids. Let’s hope it goes all the way to a great upheaval of the whole specie.
Yeap, I am ambitious that way…
Yet I’m also confident in the fact there will always be usurpators, and that they will be heard from their position.
> > > I am looking at metastructure where everyone knows everyone through 7 > > > people. The whole is completely networked even today. With one global > > > network. That network has whole political influence of the World. I am > > > not interested in clusters, as long as clusters do not have political > > > power. Network has. > > > > A trust network generally is not considered to encompass all of > > society… > > Why not?
The word society is already used to describe… society :)
A trust network is generally used to describe something else. A group of people who share some kind of confidence among themselves. And I can tell you, some groups don’t include me, this is a fact.
You are unnecessarily complicating the discussion here.
> > > > Global? Your reputation is based on many things, and among it are > > > > prominent political figures. > > > > > > Do not worry about them. They have setted their reputation trough old, > > > not TOP system. The influence they set is an influence of the glass > > > legs. It is the forum where through reputation sets. So, when big heads > > > come to forum, they become much smaller then when we imagine them > > > through media set myths. When you can touch your god, it is not your > > > god any more. The same thing is with the transmited reputation that has > > > its worthiness based on TOP only. > > > > What you are describing is not an innate power of online politics, but > > merely the fact that current politicians don’t really use the internet > > and are not fond of it. > > > > Of course, the consequence is that online their presence does not carry > > as much power as in the traditional places. But this will change. > > On TOP they can not BS around as they regularly do. So, if they are > good at TOP where facts follow them, as long as TOP “remembers” and > works on principle “you can fool some people some time…” if they can > keep their reputation on TOP, I see no problem with that.
Are you telling me there won’t be bullshit anymore? :)
> Yet. As long as their political power origins at closed paradigm, lets > call it machiavelism, where manipulation, lies and imposture are common > principle of gaining poliical position, disclosure process in TOP is > something that puts them rather behind in comparison to some novice.
TOP or not, I can already tell you there will be lies and impostures. Like with newspapers, we can hope more and more will be exposed.
Democracy requires vigilance.
> > There you go. This is politics. In a forum, online or not, this has > > consequences. For example that you will be heard or not. > > Yes. So? BTW, you have to keep in mind that it is YOU who decide whom > you are going to listen to. It is your position in network that gives > you inputs for what would you find relevant and what is not. As you > know, I am not supporter of rough quantification in a process of > setting quality standards. I find quality standards need qualitative > principles for set up. > > Or to look at Leparlament, I am not interested in common arithmetical > middle that will say to me what is interesting and what is not, but > simmilar thinkers I did notice who can reccomend me whom to listen. The > same thing as with music. > > I do not follow popular charts, but people I consider to have good > music. In that way, no torture of majority is possible and I find it > very important, especially as long as in that way usurpators based on > popularity are not possible. They are by passed by network itself. They > have no influence at my opinion at all.
You are not speaking of democratic decision making there… But of communication, of influence :-(
Of course deliberation is a component of democracy, yet by itself it is not sufficient.
> > Can one person be responsible, can a couple, can a small group…? > > Yes. Why not? You do not think so?
Of course I do, I am a democrat. I just felt you had troubles with the concept of group responsibility.
> > > > Not very considerate of democracy… :-( > > > > > > In a way you see it, you are probably right. In a way I see it, what > > > you call democracy is just a mockery. I am looking for real democracy. > > > > Which is one where one vote matters enough for you to use it? Or one > > where you will be heard by everybody? > > Participation is the essence of democracy, not mere voting.
Democratic decision making requires some kind of voting…
+1
-
-
-
-
