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
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Openness
-
> 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
