[top-politics] Re: Openness

echarp — 2006-11-01 00:05:23+0100

> 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.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > > 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…

echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request