Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (52) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
This group was started with the goal of creating a network of different initiatives which reside on the TOP (Transparent Open Public) principles of political activities.
We hope that we will soon be able to share concepts, ideas and suggestions about the Internet as a media, OpenSource as a paradigm and Democracy as the ultimate goal.
+0
New discussion
Answer
Everyone;
I have offered before to set up a BBS
to those who seemed in positions of leadership in this group.
I have not gotten any response from them.
Yet i notice and agree with the numerous voices
which have voiced concern over
the monumental amount of noise being generated in this email list,
all with very little permanent record or tangible progress being made.
So, instead of waiting around for others to put something together,
i just took the liberty of directly setting-up
a TOP-Politics BBS for our group.
It is here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/
There is not much there yet.
I did set up a few subject categories which folks are welcome to post into.
I did do some work in one area that i thought was important.
i collected known web links which have been discussed in this group
and i posted them here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/viewtopic.php?t=2
If anyone sees any errors,
please either contact me
or attempt to correct them yourself after registering there-in.
And of course, please add links which you believe are useful, with brief descriptions, as i have done.
Here below is a copy of what i have posted there-on. ****************************************** This is the general link for subscribing to and reviewing older email discussions of this “Totally Open Politics” Group:
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics.
*********************************
Form: Emmanuel:
emmanuel.charpentier_at_free.fr
~ The following link is to a very useful web page that keeps track and organizes the emails coming through in this discussion.
http://leparlement.org/top-politics
~~ The following link is to a web-page that is doing cutting-edge in European and French electronic direct-democracy, with global implications .
~~ General Discussion of Direct Democracy, very comprehensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct_democracy&oldid=48055730
Unknown source:
Very thorough discussion of the use of “Proxy Ballots” in advancing democratic principles:
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/proxy.htm ************************************************** From: Mark Rosst
~ Advocacy of “Structured Deep Democracy”; aka: “SD2” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
~ Marks links to scholarly articles which directly or indirectly support SD2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
~~ Marks personal articles in support of SD2:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/files/
***************************************
Charles Stewart has established a “Common-Law Direct Democracy”, aka: “CLD2” Weighted-Voting Program;
which he considers to be very advanced,
and which he invites every one to participate in
by registering and voting on the various issues there-in; here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/index.php
charles_at_opensourcegov.us
charles_at_directdemocraticgov.us
*****************************************************
Other group members please post your links here:
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 05:21:00PM +0000, charles.opensource wrote:
I have offered before to set up a BBS…http://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/I’m fine using any forum, if I can use my mail tools to read and respond to posts.
Can phpBB do that? Can it act as a mailing list? Can it be replicated in real time? (on http://leparlement.org/top-politics)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
by the way, quoting an requoting is not always required, or else mails would reach hundreds of lines, lengths which would make them much much harder to read and comprehend
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
You can have mails from PHPbb when a new posting is made in a certain
thread.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to have it for all new post or not.
But, I strongly advocate the use of an internet forum in front of mail
lists.
We have had the discussion in our party and some seems to be very
conservative ehen it comes to this, they are talking about information
stress etc. and want’ just everything to be mailed to them.
In reality I would claim that a lot of mails back and forth really
creates information stress and that a visit to a internet based forum
can be very short and very informative if it’s possible to quickly see
where the action is.
It can be over in minutes.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:13:21AM +0200, MG wrote:
You can have mails from PHPbb when a new posting is made in a certainthread.I’m not sure if it’s possible to have it for all new post or not.But, I strongly advocate the use of an internet forum in front of maillists.Why not a forum and a mailing list interconnected then? Thus we can keep google groups and just have it translated, replicated, somewhere else.
We have had the discussion in our party and some seems to be veryconservative ehen it comes to this, they are talking about informationstress etc. and want’ just everything to be mailed to them.
Some wise people you have there. Nothing conservative, just plain human psychology, simple and effective ergonomy. My mail tools I control and hone, your web forum you control and administer!
Let’s combine the best of both worlds.
In reality I would claim that a lot of mails back and forth reallycreates information stress and that a visit to a internet based forumcan be very short and very informative if it’s possible to quickly seewhere the action is.
It’s already difficult to go through 600 lines long mails, let’s not add further pain to it…
It can be over in minutes.
I’d rather be the judge of how I spend my minutes ;-)
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG:-Why are you wrong echarp?
Beacuse you miss the idea of all postings, easily searchable and
readable also after years.
Possible for google to find, possilbe to categorize as charles
demonstrated.
Maybe you can save time, but can humanity?
If there is such thing as combination I’m ofcourse not against it, but
how can it be?
It’s already difficult to go through 600 lines long mails, let’s not add
further pain to it…
MG:-Exactly!
This is done by categorization. Things are discussed on the right
place, not all over the place.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:11:21PM -0700, MG wrote:
MG:-Why are you wrong echarp?Beacuse you miss the idea of all postings, easily searchable andreadable also after years.Possible for google to find, possilbe to categorize as charlesdemonstrated.Maybe you can save time, but can humanity?This is what the web forum is for.
If there is such thing as combination I’m ofcourse not against it, buthow can it be?
Well, have a look at http://leparlement.org/top-politics
It is a web forum and a mailing list (and nothing else yet).
There are most certainly bugs and failures, but it exists and contains a copy of all our posts since I joined the group. Today it replicates google groups, but tomorrow I can easily make it the other way around (in fact google groups and parlement can probably just send mails to each other, and thus remain in sync without a hassle).
Want to test it using mails? Send a mail to top-politics@leparlement.org or to test@leparlement.org or go on the web page (http://leparlement.org/test).
What categories do you think are needed? They are easy to create.It’s already difficult to go through 600 lines long mails, let’s not addfurther pain to it…MG:-Exactly!This is done by categorization. Things are discussed on the rightplace, not all over the place.
Right now I only see two of them:
The FAQ could become useful if we are to attract newcomers (will that ever happen?)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hello Emmanuel.
Right now I only see two of them:* general discussion* requirementsThe FAQ could become useful if we are to attract newcomers (will thatever happen?)
I do not actually know what happened to newcommers and why they are not comming up there. I tried to promote on several groups and forums and there was no response (OK, the fact is that these places are more or less dead in this moment).
But here comes another question about this issue, is it slow income eventually due to not recognisability of what is this group actually about?
Second thing that commes up to my mind is creation of the list of simmilar discussion groups where wecould eventually promote this group?
I used to do it on the opendemocracy.org / open politics and e- democracy forums / plus cicdd and democracy-europe on yahoo groups.
Do you have other places to mention?
BTW, top politics is considering to pagerank good name as long as when you write open politics you get top politics first. When you wirte transaprent politics, you get top poltics first. Talking about google groups, of course.
Yet, is this group about top politics or something else actually?
There are several random ideas that could eventually explain us what and why is happening to this group.
ATB,.
Gale
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Well, have a look at http://leparlement.org/top-politics
MG:-OK, might work!
Right now I only see two of them:
MG:-
RD vs DD
Needed function in a voting system
Voting software devlopment
Needed functions in forum
Forum development
Security
Strategy to come forward
etc etc
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/70
Please, follow replies as long as there was some misunderstaing up-there.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Thank You Gale !
I added yur list to the list i made,
so we should be getting fuller lists of group recourses & web pages.
I added your recourse list ti mine, here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/viewforum.php?f=10
Thanks,
Charles …
illegale wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/70Please, follow replies as long as there was some misunderstaingup-there. ATB,Gale.
+0
New discussion
Answer
No problem :-)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear members of Group of 5.
3 months ago 5 of us decided to join forces in order of moving forward together. We set our first goal, which was definition of TOP, which is not so easy task, yet rather important for our future work.
In last month we lost some interest in moving forward, probably due to holiday season which is now over.
I believe we can go on and finish our first goal. I understand that some of you did not gain interest back to finish our first work, but I have to mention that the worst thing that can happen is to leave things non-finished. If we did agree to enter this process and finish our first task, we have to do that, even if most of us would not enjoy that much anymore.
But, if we leave this task non-finished, instead of gaining more trust among each other, we will actually loose trust, which makes this be creation of non-trust network, something highly demotivating for further work and cooperation that all of us will actually need if we want to succeed in our political work.
So, Markus and I are moving on, I hope other members will find some strenght to endure to finish of our first goal. After that we can separate.
ATB,
Gale
PS. Whoever including persons who are not origian members of group of 5 is willing to participate in continuing of this process, please read previous mail from definition of TOP in order to get fully informed before moving on.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+1
I have a little suggestion. Since through intensive communication we weren’t able to formulate a concise definition I propose that we take the text on http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP as a starting point, and see what is good, and what is bad in such a definition. Maybe through an OpenSource approach we can optimize this definition, e.g. write new versions and track down bugs until we are all satisfied with the definition.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+1
Hey,
Just registered on the TOP website, I agree editing the Wiki is
probably the simplest and fastest option to get the definition agreed
on. Also it seems to me that if the mechanisms of TOP require a lot of
thought and experimentation, defining TOP seems actually pretty
straightforward. Probably deceptively since you appear to have had
extensive discussions on it. I know that when talking to some friends
about the concept of transparency there is no misunderstanding as to
what is meant (ie, when you want to have a look, things are clear).
I’ll try making some edits to the wiki, and then you’ll cut or keep
depending on what you think and off we go.
Have a good weekend,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hello Serge.
If you think that would be the finest manner of realising this work, then I am proud to say we have set first competition in project menagement.
IMO, thorough brain stream is really needed for setting proper basic shell for this, where wiki is not as usefull as regular discussion group. Of course, my assumption might be wrong.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
This is the current process we adopted, based on three basic questions:
Now, we are in the phase 1 called:
“Where are we now?”
In this moment we do share some thoughts about TOP and how do we understand it. In this very moment, as long as we just gathering new thoughts and perspectives, there is some need for free communication withouth too concrete bindings.
When we do share some thoughts, or at least when Serge gives his shot as long as others might be satisfied with they current participation in this very moment, next thing we can do is to take thoughts of OTHER participiants.
By pointing out thoughts of others, we can notice how penetrating are these thoughts in general public that is not based on our micro contexts that are not politically relevant.
Then we are entering to second stage which is:
“Where would we like to be?”
In second stage we share our expectations of future definition. What do we actually want from it? What are our desires and needs?
When we realise our needs, we can develop basic shell on xwiki and start filling it.
The last stage:
“How do we get there?”
Might be based on xwiki as recomended, yet the whole process is openstanding and can be changed if we realise there current process is not satisfactory.
Now, we can also set general dead lines and my suggestion is that we set next generation of TOP definition in 2 months in order of not letting this project die due to no time expectations.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Transparency
Open
Public
Personally I love and appreciate transparency, I propose a criteria to determine if an organisation is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organisation of itself.
This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Gale,
Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and the results, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like to participate.
Best regards,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hello Serge.
I am really glad you are interested in participation.
Let me share links: What does TOP mean to you?
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/#
In this part above we generally discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#
In this part we did set some thoughts of a way how are we going to discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2e36b043403287ec/#
This is actually extra literature (:)), text I translated about TOP from Croatian. It was not originally part of the discussion, but it might be usefull.
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
This is current definition of TOP from Tiaktiv, yet we do not think it has satisfying value, so that is the reason we from Tiaktiv actually show big interests in redefinition of the whole oncept.
ATB,
Gale
Serge wrote:
Hey Gale,Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and theresults, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like toparticipate.Best regards,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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Can we please first decide whter to stay here or to move somewhere else
with better functionality of the forum.
For now I vote for this:
http://groups.google.se/group/top-politics
Anyone against it?
Until this is decide, I will not answer any new posts in this list.
BR/
Karl (Mange)
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
Karl wrote:
Can we please first decide whter to stay here or to move somewhere else with better functionality of the forum.For now I vote for this:http://groups.google.se/group/top-politicsAnyone against it?Until this is decide, I will not answer any new posts in this list.Well, i am comparatively new to this group;
First, my smaller concerns are that:
my open-source leanings are inherently opposed to big corporations,
such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, or AOL.
Further; there are numerous smaller domain-names & servers available
which can very adequately facilitate
the 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/
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.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/features.html
http://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/
http://directdemocraticgov.org/generalassembly/
http://www.phpbb.com/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/
http://www.phpbbhacks.com/
I would need to share the admin access and password with anyone who ran these systems under these domain names.
If you-all do not trust me to share admin access (for what-ever reasons); then i can set up the same systems, with all of these features, under a different domain-name of your own choosing, such as perhaps “Top-Politics.org”, or something similar.
That domain can be under the complete control of
your own chosen domain administrator.
If you-all liked, i could help get things set up,
then turn it all over to him,
& he could change the password so that only he administers it.
But even if you-all do not want anything associated
in any way with the server which i share;
i still strongly suggest that this group find
some other source for hosting our discussions
than Google, Yahoo; or the other big companies.
This is a “Moral Issue”.
If, as our “top-politics” web-page so courageously declares,
we truly believe in empowerment of the common people through
“Transparent Open Public principles of political activities”
& and about “using the Internet as a media,
OpenSource as a paradigm, and Democracy as the ultimate goal”;
if we truly believe these things,
then surely we need to get away from those
fat/ugly/capitalist control-oriented corporations.
In support of my indictment of Yahoo & Google in particular;
i cite the following evidence of knowingly contributing to the empowerment
of probably the single most oppressive regime on this planet, China.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/internet/
These web-pages, and the “Frontline” documentary in question;
show that both Yahoo & Google have knowingly & willfully contributed to
the “Censoring” of the free flow of information against
the poor common Chinese People,
all for the specific goals of keeping them ignorant and oppressed.
Yahoo’s providing of private information
has resulted in the arrest of a Chinese journalist named “Shi Tao”.
He was a “blogger jailed after Yahoo!
released account information to the Chinese government”.
(Direct quote from the above web page.)
Shi Tao served a 10-year sentence because of Yahoo snitching him off. Google is providing similar information to them.
Surely; there are many more karma-clean options
for hosting our discussion forum than Google or Yahoo.
Please gentlemen;
the high principles which we espouse
must be reflected in our real/tangible activities.
Please, the move away from Yahoo is a very good idea; but please do not just jump from the frying-=pan to the fire by moving over to Google.
Please,
Charles Stewart
Sandy Oregon
BR/Karl (Mange)Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
<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?
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 thesedomains.
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 do need to trust you about this issue. If you say do it, that I believe that is the real thing.
On the other hand, I have common past with Google and Yahoo. This gives me security I am looking for in this moment. This gives me possibility to know you better and to change my opinion during time. With no rush. With many reason. I suppose you understand my concern about this proposal.
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.
I suppose there is some work to do about that. Work we can peacefully continue after we move/or not move. Just do it steady, peacefully. That is all.
Charles. Do you possibly agree that we move to Google /no big differecne to yahoo?/ 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?
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. If we go that way, we are reducing any possibility of doing wrong stuff pretty much. And if we do it properly, we could build something pretty cool :-)
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/I would need to share the admin access and passwordwith anyone who ran these systems under these domain names.If you-all do not trust me to share admin access (for what-everreasons);
then i can set up the same systems, with all of these features,under a different domain-name of your own choosing,such as perhaps “Top-Politics.org”, or something similar.That domain can be under the complete control ofyour own chosen domain administrator.If you-all liked, i could help get things set up,then turn it all over to him,& he could change the password so that only he administers it.But even if you-all do not want anything associatedin any way with the server which i share;i still strongly suggest that this group findsome other source for hosting our discussionsthan Google, Yahoo; or the other big companies.This is a “Moral Issue”.If, as our “top-politics” web-page so courageously declares,we truly believe in empowerment of the common people through"Transparent Open Public principles of political activities"& and about “using the Internet as a media,OpenSource as a paradigm, and Democracy as the ultimate goal”;if we truly believe these things,then surely we need to get away from thosefat/ugly/capitalist control-oriented corporations.
Yet. Opennes does not mean exclusion with no reason.
In support of my indictment of Yahoo & Google in particular;i cite the following evidence of knowingly contributing to the
empowerment
of probably the single most oppressive regime on this planet,China.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/internet/These web-pages, and the “Frontline” documentary in question;show that both Yahoo & Google have knowingly & willfullycontributed to
the “Censoring” of the free flow of information againstthe poor common Chinese People,all for the specific goals of keeping them ignorant and oppressed.Yahoo’s providing of private informationhas resulted in the arrest of a Chinese journalist named “Shi Tao”.He was a “blogger jailed after Yahoo!released account information to the Chinese government”.(Direct quote from the above web page.)Shi Tao served a 10-year sentence because of Yahoo snitching himoff.
Google is providing similar information to them.Surely; there are many more karma-clean optionsfor hosting our discussion forum than Google or Yahoo.Please gentlemen;the high principles which we espousemust be reflected in our real/tangible activities.Please, the move away from Yahoo is a very good idea;but please do not just jump from the frying-=pan to the fireby moving over to Google.Please,Charles StewartSandy OregonBR/Karl (Mange)Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
geoerdeaen wrote:
—- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “charles.opensource” <charles@…> wrote:Yes.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?
I am glad you are speaking your concerns plainly, Gale.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 thesedomains.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 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,GaleThese are links which illustrate the email and bbs programsavailable:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://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/
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Charles
From: “charles.opensource” <charles@opensourcegov.us>
To: <top-politics@yahoogroups.com>; <gale1@vip.hr>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: [top-politics] Re: … The Future of this List …
C:- 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.
mS:- :-))) There is not any one in command or in primary position of responsibility. As I see it this is a concensus based heterarchy ;-)
mS:- I fully agree to this.G:- I do need to trust you about this issue.If you say do it, that I believe that is the real thing.C:- “Trust” is at the center of everything, yes.Nothing can be built in communities of people without “Trust”.
C:- 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.
mS:- Well if you have root access to your server (i.e. you can install your own software) than you certainly can host wiki systems. BTW. If you have root access, maybe this would be a great place for our testing platform? If you are still interested to help, of course ;-))
C:- 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.
mS:- Also agree here. So can we trust you? ;-)) If yes, would you agree that we create an new domain (i.e. www.top-politics.org) and you give us (developers) limited access to the part we need for development?
C:- 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 keptfor insertion into any system which eventually we choose.
Well since we get all messages on our e-mails (especially from you since you send me double or triple ones ;-)) I think back-up is no problem.
C:- I really like thinking of all of this in military terms.
mS:- Well I actually realy don’t like the military, their terms and anything that has to do with weapons. So I rather like information engineering terms since they are more adequate and precise.
C:- 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.
mS:- I agree.
C:- 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.
mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highly probable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave the negative thoughts and start thinking positive!
C:- It may be good to keep the old Yahoo system in place;like for 6 months or so, just in case where we move tois under the control of people who hate our work.
mS:- Well, I’d rather make local back-up copies and shut the old system down so we do not get a segmented disscusion. This should be a primary implementation issue – allways leave the possibility to easily make local backup. BTW: this is implemented in squishdot since every message posted is forwarded to e-mail on will. And, Charles please stop talking about hate, and other negative stuff. Only positive collaboration atmosphere brings results.
C:- On my server, we have programs which can automatically send an email to youwith that days current copy of the entire email list.Further, copies of the archives of all past emails to the listcan can be regularly copied & saved by the administrator.Same with the PHP-BB BBS system.
mS:- Yes, only by the admin, but whats with the rest? Since here are about 6-7 different initiatives in a network this means that from every initiative one representative should have the admin password ;-))) I think it’s easier to program a script or something which will do this automatically so no admin-access would be needed.
C:- But please remember,we are in “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This is not war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there is scientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used to trust you more.
C:- Saying that, i leave the decision to you, & the others; respectfully.
mS:- :-))) Be aware of the situation that no one is in charge here, but we all are, even you ;-)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
[…]
C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.
mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave the negative
-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with the enemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts, so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties) nor are we a threat to capitalism.
And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
C:- But please remember,we are in “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This is
not
war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there is
scientific
evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used to
trust
you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit, but plese remember it wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders like Hamilton and Franklin.
SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business, if so, winning the hearts and minds of people will occur without direct effort on our part.
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Agreed.C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave thenegative thoughts and start thinking positive!-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with theenemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts,
so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties)
Your above reference to “guillotine parties”, Mark;
seems to me to be an indication that you are really opposed to
un-justifiable & indiscriminate killing of everyone
loosely associated with oppressive activities
of present despotic governmental policies.
If that is what you trying to say,
then we are in agreement.
But if you are advocating an essentially “Pacifist” position,
to the effect that we do not have the right
to use force in our own self-defense,
then we are in disagreement.
nor are we a threat to capitalism.
I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”.
But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,
founded in the paper-documents of title
& paper/credit money based economies,
which are inherently under the control of
the fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests,
who so powerfully oppress the common people of this planet.
And it is my humble opinion that
those forms of “Capitalist” interests,
are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,
& to all forms of “totally open” government.
And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
Oh, yes.
But please keep firmly in mind, that:
all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations of
what thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
As with your interesting debate on “elites”,
the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.
Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lying issues; sir.
Thank you, Mark.mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnotwar! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientificevidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrustyou more.-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,
This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.
but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders
Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;
& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,
that the common people need effective tools for
quickly & efficiently deciding who among them
is most deserving of being entrusted with
those leadership positions.
But i am inclined to believe that our American Revolution
was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;
& that the massive blood-shed there-in
could have very possibly been avoided,
if the then-chosen leaders had pursued
the “pathway of peace” more zealously, through
some direct-democratic common-law class-action judicial process
which their leaders (such as the attorney Hamilton)
should have been aware of.
like Hamilton and Franklin.
Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’ such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society.
Franklin was also involved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
Much better leaders were surely available
to more faithfully serve the true sociological needs
of the common american people.
If those early americans had been in possession of
tools for more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,
much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.
Hopefully; with the work of this group,
those same mistakes will not continue in our nations future.
Related point: on your “Elites” debate;
Jefferson (one of my favorites) spoke of
“Natural Aristocracy”, & “Un-Natural Aristocracy”.
The “Natural Aristocracy” are those people who
the good-hearted but incompetent lemmings of the nation
vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders.
The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who are
well-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests,
to command the obedience of the people
in top-down authoritarian romanistic military command structures.
There was a very big Factional-Division
between Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue.
Jefferson was winning form may years of our early history;
but especially after the civil war,
the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control in government,
& Hamilton’s philosophy is largely
the resulting model in todays forms of government.
SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,
So may CLD2.
Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
if so, winning the hearts and minds of people will occur without direct effort on our part.
I agree that once the process is running,
that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity.
But i do not consider attempting to market our ideas in the capitalistic profit-oriented business community to be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
I admit i could be wrong there,
but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.
Charles …
shantiMark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.
mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave thenegative thoughts and start thinking positive!
-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with theenemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts,
C: Agreed.
M: so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties)
C: Your above reference to “guillotine parties”, Mark; seems to me to be an indication that you are really opposed toun-justifiable & indiscriminate killing of everyone loosely associated with oppressive activities of present despotic governmental policies. If that is what you trying to say, then we are in agreement.
-M: yes, so rock on.
C: But if you are advocating an essentially “Pacifist” position, to the effect that we do not have the right
to use force in our own self-defense, then we are in disagreement.
-M: I, and my religion, are not pacifistic – and I encourge everyone to prepare to defend themselves, but I see no current reason for bloodshed.
M: nor are we a threat to capitalism.
C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,
founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money based economies, which are inherently under the control of the fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfully oppress the common people of this planet.
-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy) By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of political economy.
C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests, are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.
C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.
-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations of
what thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.
Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lying issues; sir.
-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,
C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …
-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers were liberals(liberators). (And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in. This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.
-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us? Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible? Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
M:…but plese remember it wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders; & i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,
that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficiently
deciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted with
those leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that our
American Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;
& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly been
avoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursued
the “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democratic
common-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such as
the attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this. And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
C:…like Hamilton and Franklin.
C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was also
involved in those secret-societies,
as were washington & numerous other founders.
They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needs
of the common american people.
-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common
people?
Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
C: If those early americans had been in possession of tools for more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,
much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.
-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
C: Hopefully; with the work of this group, those same mistakes will not continue in our nations future. Related point: on your “Elites” debate;
Jefferson (one of my favorites) spoke of “Natural Aristocracy”, &
“Un-Natural Aristocracy”. The “Natural Aristocracy” are those people
who
the good-hearted but incompetent lemmings…
M: Sounds familiar. :)
C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders. The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who are
well-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to command the obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanistic military command structures. There was a very big Factional-Division between Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson was winning form may years of our early history; but especially after the civil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control in government, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting model in todays forms of government.
-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberator of the people. He was also a supporter of a national bank, which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,
C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
M: Because it appears to be in-degree(lemming) based. :(
M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of people will occur without direct effort on our part.
C: I agree that once the process is running, that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity. But i do not consider attempting to market our ideas in the capitalistic profit-oriented business community to be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
-M: Yes it is, because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.
C: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.
-M: Just because you are for the common people doesn’t mean that they
are for you and each other.
Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote
Very Good.C: But if you are advocating an essentially “Pacifist” position, to the effect that we do not have the right
to use force in our own self-defense, then we are in disagreement.-M: I, and my religion, are not pacifistic – and I encourge everyone toprepare to defend themselves,
but I see no current reason for bloodshed.
Agreed.
I am glad you recognize some problems.M: nor are we a threat to capitalism.C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money basedeconomies, which are inherently under the control ofthe fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfullyoppress the common people of this planet.-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy)
By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of politicaleconomy.
We have more pressing issues.
This debate can wait.
Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests, are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can bemanipulated.
As you previously stated,C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, thistransparency will do little good.
If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.
Well said.-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations ofwhat thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
I am glad that we seem to agree.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how tointerpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can haverigor.
We have all of these points in common.mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers wereliberals(liberators).(And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
Perhaps.C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in. This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us?
Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible?
As it serves the higher goals, yes.
Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culturethat Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
Again, well said.
Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader-M: I am not aware of this.M:…but plese remember it wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders…C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders; & i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
We do not have to wait for the next election.
We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures
necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him.
Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices
by any single man who has properly framed
a legal complaint against him.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSupportingQW.htm
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSupportingQW.pdf
This gives each of us as individuals,
immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.
The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions.
This process is unfashionable because
the corrupted education & media monopolies
glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods,
& because they paint our few knowledgeable activists
like radical right-wing whackos.
And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
Well, i am a vegetarian, & i do believe in fasting, & i do have some profound respect for Gandhi; but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
I phrased my concern poorly.C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies,as were washington & numerous other founders.-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums.They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing
through indirect implications by
the documented oppressive activities of their members.
Precisely opposite.C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the commonpeople?
Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of those entities frequently conducted secretive meetings.
Just because skull & bones members
have not been caught with blood-stained hands,
does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence
that their activities are subversive.
Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
I am not familiar with that society.
This entire subject-string is not good to pursue further.
It is not worthy of our time & energy
at least at this beginning-level juncture.
They had common-law, & they knew aboutC: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
When those townships & precincts are run
with full knowledge with their lawful rights and duties
to elect responsible leaders in each of their smaller
10 & 100 household jurisdictions (respectively)
they only need pen & paper,
not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/World12Divisions.html
It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners.C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders.The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who arewell-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to commandthe obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanisticmilitary command structures. There was a very big Factional-Divisionbetween Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson waswinning form may years of our early history; but especially after thecivil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control ingovernment, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting model in todays forms of government.-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberatorof the people.
The common american people were doing just fine
tinkering in their shops and garages.
Industry did have its advantages,
but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,
and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.
The common people only gained
comparatively insignificant increases in power,
which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.
He was also a supporter of a national bank,
Oh yes.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3510313821923167501
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-1
which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
If you are saying that Hamilton was trying to
help the common people become more economically self sufficient,
i believe the above links will strongly contradict that.
As do i.
We should probably let his thread go.
Maybe at another time it will be useful,
after our forums are better established, & segregated by subject.
<snip, separate email>
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money based economies, which are inherently under the control ofthe fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfully oppress the common people of this planet.
-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy)
C: I am glad you recognize some problems.
M: By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of political economy.
C: We have more pressing issues. This debate can wait.-M: Yes, this is ideological.
C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.
C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.
So i suppose we agree here.
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpreted in a negative way.
C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.
-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.
-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).
M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations ofwhat thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.
C: Well said.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.
-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.
C: I am glad that we seem to agree.-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,
C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …
-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers wereliberals(liberators). (And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
C: We have all of these points in common.
C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in.This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.
-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us?
C: Perhaps.
M: Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible?
C: As it serves the higher goals, yes.-M: OK.
M: Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
C: Again, well said.
-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity. This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this.
C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election.We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legal complaint against him.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…
-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulating the US into war.
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.
The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making
unfounded malicious prosecutions.
This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media
monopolies
glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint
our few knowledgeable activists
like radical right-wing whackos.
-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly
LEMMINGS.
Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or
not.
M: And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
C: Well, i am a vegetarian, & i do believe in fasting, & i do have some profound respect for Gandhi;
-M: He was a spiritual man.
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary. EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip. Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/ now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and Schumacher College.
I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had been
invited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to a
small group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they were
impressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I saw
him drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat
(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make a
nationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington Hall
Trust is packed with Imperialist blood money.
http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families). The best institution for economic collusion is a shareholding corporation.
If you are suggesting ideological collusion underlying secret societies, I am skeptical since ideologies have been used by the ruling families to manipulate the masses and not the otherway around.
C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.
-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common people?
C: Precisely opposite. But there are organizations which have clear “patterns of behavior” of oppressing the common people.
Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of those entities frequently conducted secretive meetings.
-M: Did the American Revolutionaries conduct secret meetings? So? Have you ever told a secret?
C: Just because skull & bones members have not been caught with blood-stained hands, does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence that their activities are subversive.
-M: They are just a branch of the British Empire. These families have
blood and economic ties.
They want you to focus on the front because that is part of the Puppet
Show.
M: Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
C: I am not familiar with that society.
-M: Franklin founded it as a republican form of Masonry to replace the
oligarchic Masonry in the USA.
Nepotistic degeneracy caused this society to degenerate from its intial
ideals.
C: This entire subject-string is not good to pursue further. It is not worthy of our time & energy
at least at this beginning-level juncture.
-M: OK.
C: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.
-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
C: […]they only need pen & paper, not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.-M: Yes, an unwritten rule in Common Law appears to be ease of computation.
C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders.The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who arewell-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to commandthe obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanisticmilitary command structures. There was a very big Factional-Divisionbetween Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson waswinning form may years of our early history; but especially after thecivil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control ingovernment, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting modelin todays forms of government.
-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberator of the people.
C: It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners. It dispossessed the common people from their family farms.The common american people were doing just fine tinkering in their shops and garages.
-M: No, it gave the North the money needed to win against the South during the Civil War.
C: Industry did have its advantages, but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,
and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.
-M: Things were fine until around 1886 – this is when the Robber Barrons came around.
C: The common people only gained comparatively insignificant increases in power,
which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.
-M: Isn’t this what usually happens when change occurs?
M: He was also a supporter of a national bank,
C: Oh yes.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3510313821923167501 http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=Fi…
M: which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
C: If you are saying that Hamilton was trying to help the common people become more economically self sufficient,
i believe the above links will strongly contradict that. As do i. We
should probably let his thread go.
Maybe at another time it will be …
-M: There is misinformation out there to attack the American System of political economy, so be careful.
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
You seem to again be criticizing-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use thelemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”. If that is your assumption, it is in error.
Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of
100 possible maximum weighted approval.
Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,
to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.
So your critique that the CLD2 process if only “counting” is in error, sir.
It would be greatly appreciated
if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist day
to explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail.
That would enable me to respond more intelligently, instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
I have frequently found myself in the same position.-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points fordiscussion.For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing aboutpeoples controlling and fundamental assumptions.When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entireworldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
But i have come to realize that
the target audience for seeking to educate
concerning these superior modes of procedure,
are best lead to the superior knowledge levels
through the use of carrots, as opposed to sticks.
Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists.
Sticks & deception are the tools of
the un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as
humble “Servants” of the common man.
For sure, there are times to go ballistic;
but generally speaking,
adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views,
trying to see things from his point of view,
is a characteristic of a natural-born leader,
which in-turn builds the critically-important “Trust” in his supporters.
With all due respect,
I believe you argument concerning “Elitism”,
failed to empathize sufficiently with the opposing arguments,
to give those debaters due credit for
their perhaps poorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns.
The natural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; to accommodate his followers, imho.
Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
Agreed. 100 %.C: Again, well said.-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity.This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
Precisely.M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.-M: I am not aware of this.C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election.We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary toattempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removedfrom public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legalcomplaint against him.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulatingthe US into war.
I will file them all at the same time
in the us supreme court in approximately 1 month.
These suits are in the nature of class-action suits.
It would be good to be engineering the masses in mass support of these suits,
similar to how mass-support for petitions
are presently being engineered by on-line communities.
Your support in this very needed effort would be greatly appreciated. But there-under, we need to be making better efforts at clearly communicating with each other.
I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark.C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by makingunfounded malicious prosecutions.This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & mediamonopoliesglamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paintour few knowledgeable activistslike radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostlyLEMMINGS.Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it ornot.
Im believe you noted my christian beliefs,
especially in my above-linked domain name.
Conservatives & liberals frequently presume that
i am not capable of resorting to the usage of
such drastic terminology.
They error.
Interesting link.C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.
I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
Well said.
I know how “Due Process of Law” works.such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
It would be a distraction from more pressing concerns to pursue this indictment here & now.
People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).
You are entitled to your opinion.
I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.
The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them.
Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct, they have just modernly morphed into modern neocon imperialism.
In medieval & later european time times,
they operated as the roman catholic church;
which has always supported top-down slavery-oriented authoritarianism.
It was the protestants & barbarians of england, france, & germany; which stood in opposition to those romanistic authoritarian slave-traders.
The best institution for economic collusion is a shareholding corporation.
I prefer non-profit religious corporations.
Statutes recognize that religious organization
can refuse demands from the attorney general to produce books & records.
No other corporation has statutory approval for refusing such a demand.
If you are suggesting ideological collusion underlying secretsocieties, I am skeptical since ideologies have been used by the rulingfamilies to manipulate the masses and not the otherway around.
Well, the first half of your premise we agree on.
The ruling families do use private organizations, especially religious ones,
as mind-control tools to control popular behavior.
But this does not either support or negate
your inferred linkage that secret societies
are not routinely used for hatching imperialistic conspiratorial schemes.
You fail to focus on my central point, sir.C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common people?C: Precisely opposite. But there are organizations which have clear “patterns of behavior” of oppressing the common people.Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of thoseentities frequently conducted secretive meetings.-M: Did the American Revolutionaries conduct secret meetings? So?Have you ever told a secret?
I admit many secret societies are used for benefit. That is not the point i wish to draw into controversy.
My point is that skull & bones & other illuminati like organizations, are routinely used to hatch & implement oppressive imperialistic schemes.
You have said nothing here-in to negate that proposition.
We are not able to focus, constructively, presently. I suggest we let this issue slide until later.C: Just because skull & bones members have not been caught with blood-stained hands, does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence that their activities are subversive.-M: They are just a branch of the British Empire. These families haveblood and economic ties.They want you to focus on the front because that is part of the PuppetShow.
K.M: Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?C: I am not familiar with that society.-M: Franklin founded it as a republican form of Masonry to replace theoligarchic Masonry in the USA.Nepotistic degeneracy caused this society to degenerate from its intialideals.
Well; it is the only on-line voting program which is presently running. And if you and the others would quit boycotting it, we could find all of that out really quick, now, couldn’t we?-M: Yes, an unwritten rule in Common Law appears to be ease of computation.This may make it doomed to lemminghood.C: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.C: […]they only need pen & paper, not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.
Further; “ease of computation” is not a “rule” in the common-law voting system. But it is the present operating mode.
“Simplicity” is a profound recurring theme in literally multitudes of social concerns.
Further, “Simplicity” instills confidence in the common man. History if chocked full of re-curring accounts of schemes which Failed due to artificially & un-naturally built-in complexities.
And i dare suggest that your “SD2” voting model
is a primary example of this form of overly-complex engineering.
I may be wrong there,
but you certainly have not articulated to me
any reason as to why that would be the case.
I reviewed a number of your links here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
You certainly have an impressive assembly of egg-heads supporting your page-rank & SD2 voting program model. I am printing-out & reviewing some of the pdf files you liked to.
But it appears to me that you & your page-rank fellows
have engineered a ferrari for
a population which are traveling by horse & buggy,
& who would be quite happy &
significantly advanced in their self-governing abilities,
with a model-a ford.
Step back and look at your situation, Mark.
Your SD2/Page-Rank model voting program is so complex,
that you & your fellow intellectual elitists
can not even engineer a working model for the common people.
Shoot. You cannot even articulate in common terms
what are the advantages of your SD2/Page-Rank system
over other systems that are presently fully functional
& available for use.
I see serious problems with the picture which you paint, Mark.
The north did not fight the south.C: It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners. It dispossessed the common people from their family farms.The common american people were doing just fine tinkering in theirshops and garages.-M: No, it gave the North the money needed to win against the Southduring the Civil War.
The common people in the north did not want that war.
It was not necessary to wage that war.
Slavery was declining rapidly
& becoming extinct in the south anyway.
The purpose of that wars was just like the purpose of the war in iran.
It is designed to make an excuse for
implementing top-down authoritarian militarized control over
the common-people populations in both geographical areas.
And your hamiltonian elitist industrialization was
a powerful tool for achieving precisely that imperialistic goal.
Further, the civil war was a “war of nothern aggression”, just like the iraq war is a “war of aggression”.
True, the leaders of south may have been as evil as sadam hussain; but that does not justify implementing a war of aggression against either the south or iraq.
Well, things did get much worse at that date.C: Industry did have its advantages, but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.-M: Things were fine until around 1886 – this is when the RobberBarrons came around.
The changes which occurred with the american revolution and through the articles of confederationC: The common people only gained comparatively insignificant increases in power,which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.-M: Isn’t this what usually happens when change occurs?
And i do not expect that to be the effect of
changes produced through the use of CLD2.
But i do suppose that may be the case with SD2.
The true constitutional (organic) system of american political economy, is a libertarian “free-market”.C: If you are saying that Hamilton wastrying to help the common people become more economically self sufficient,i believe the above links will strongly contradict that. As do i. Weshould probably let his thread go.Maybe at another time it will be …-M: There is misinformation out there to attack the American System ofpolitical economy, so be careful.
But, again, we should probably let this one go.
And “Yes”. There is much mis-information circling about us at all times.
A good voting program will be able to help us
develop concensus concerning what is good or bad info.
shalom; charles …
shantiMark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.-M: I say it has these two charateristics:
Do you disagree with this?
C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).
C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others. You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”.If that is your assumption, it is in error. Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of
-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.
C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes, to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.
So your critique that the CLD2 process if only “counting” is in error, sir.
-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, and ends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist day
to explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable me
to respond more intelligently,
instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!
We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so
I don’t need an apology.)
The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degree
algorithm, which determines the center of a social network with the
depth of only one order. This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.
C: I have frequently found myself in the same position. But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to the superior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed to sticks.
-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in group situations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually like to see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools of
the un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds of elitists(because they both work sustainably), while deception is the trademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the short term gains that the parasite wants.
C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic;
but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristic of a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important “Trust” in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argument concerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with the opposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhaps poorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. The natural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; to accommodate his followers, imho.
-M: I make no compromises.
C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
C: Again, well said.
-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity. This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
C: Agreed. 100 %.
M: :)
M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this.
C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election. We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legal complaint against him.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…
-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulating the US into war.
C: Precisely. I have one in the works. A number of others for similar crimes are already completed.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/usa/Treason/QuoWarrantoBush.htm http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/usa/Treason/QuoWarrantoBush.pdf I will file them all at the same time in the us supreme court in approximately 1 month. These suits are in the nature of class-action suits. It would be good to be engineering the masses in mass support of these suits, similar to how mass-support for petitions are presently being engineered by on-line communities. Your support in this very needed effort would be greatly appreciated. But there-under, we need to be making better efforts at
-M: Rock’n.
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.
-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.
C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
-M: This is a deserate situation because peoples’ woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.
C: Im believe you noted my christian beliefs, especially in my above-linked domain name. Conservatives & liberals frequently presume that i am not capable of resorting to the usage of such drastic terminology. They error.
[…]
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.
C: Interesting link.-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar. I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.
M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Well said.
-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?: We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charles
and L.Di.
She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew there
was something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9.
“Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive and
benevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”
I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organize secretly if they want to.
M: People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).
C: You are entitled to your opinion. I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.
-M: I never said that it was only an economic concern.
C: The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them. Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct,
they have just modernly morphed …
-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wage slavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
No.-M: I say it has these two charateristics:1. 50%+1 of the population are eligiable voters2. The in-degree(counting)algorithmDo you disagree with this?-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
I only used the phrase to differentiate this concept from
the artificial look-alike puppet-democracies
which the neocon/imperialists own & manipulate.
Ummm. Maybe.-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others. You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”.If that is your assumption, it is in error. Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of100 possible maximum weighted approval.-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
Well, yea.C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.So your critique that the CLD2 process i(s) only “counting” is in error,sir.-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, andends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
But now that we finally seem to be
comprehending each other’s terminologies clearly;
can you explain why this simple CLD2 weighted-voting model
should be rejected by reasonable people
as a valuable tool in promoting “responsible self-government”?
I am glad that you appreciated my impassioned terminology. I do desire a nice & brotherly relationship with you.C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist dayto explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable meto respond more intelligently,instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so I don’t need an apology.)
But we still have remaining points of contention, good sir. And im sure you comprehend that there are some issues which i simply can not compromise on.
In particular, please help me achieve concensus with you
concerning how most honorably to respond to
the presence of my CLD2 voting program.
The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degreealgorithm, which determines the center of a social network with thedepth of only one order.
I really need a more detailed explanation here, sir.
This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
Those are two different critiques;
the first of which seems to me to be
the only critique of any possible substance.
Let me elaborate on how i see the program optimally being used.
An anglo/american “Township” has 10 heads-of-households which are voting to elect their own “peace-officer”, aka: “constable”, aka “cop”.
They all register their weighted votes over the internet in the CLD2 voting program.
All votes lower than 33 mean a veto has been cast.
Those heads-of-households with no vetos against them
are ranked in order of their average weighted vote.
For example; total township averaged votes are:
Joe = 91
Jack = 85
Jim = 75
Jeff = 69
Jerry = 65
Billy = 50
Bobby = 45
and the other 3 have been vetoed.
Now can you tell me Why this process should be considered as not being 100 % efficient for this small community of people in selecting their own township leader?
It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of
the desired needs of the common people there-in.
I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people
using this voting program in this way,
as you above words seem to imply, sir.
Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process
is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.
And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance, then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?
Please.
Agreed. 100 %.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.C: I have frequently found myself in the same position. But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to thesuperior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed tosticks.-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in groupsituations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually liketo see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
Misapplication is serious bad-karma.
Again; 100 % agreement.C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools ofthe un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds ofelitists (because they both work sustainably), while deception is thetrademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the shortterm gains that the parasite wants.
There is a time and place for such fervent devotion to truth & justice.C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic;but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mansviews, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristicof a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important"Trust" in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argumentconcerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with theopposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhapspoorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. Thenatural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; toaccommodate his followers, imho.-M: I make no compromises.
Granting a proud but simple country farmer his pride by making a token-concession to his uneducated but common use of words, will enable the collective-spirit of the movement to gain momentum, and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english.
You are an adult, Mark.
You do what you believe is best.
But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader,
if you just were just not quite such a hard-ass.
There are times and places to be hard-asses.C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
But the men who are your foot soldiers,
who are marching into battle with you/us;
are not the ones who you need to be focusing
your hard-ass energy against.
That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy;
& only is to be used amongst your troops
when they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid
as to directly aid that enemy.
We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.
And there are plenty of opportunities to get
verbally-abusive on some of
the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum.
But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until
the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them;
and they are blocking concensus well after
they have clearly been adequately indulged in
their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.
See these long posts i make?
It takes time & energy to develop concensus among good/proud men.
It takes work.
It takes humility, going the extra mile.
Explaining your position ‘idiot proof’.
Wrestling with concepts, & forging new terms for your target audience,
such as ‘hamiltonian elitist days’.
Im glad that struck your heart.
That was precisely what i wanted.
Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you.
Now i can get in your face, respectfully;
and tell you that i need better explanations;
& i can realistically can expect that
you are going to make a serious attempt at explaining things to me.
But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark;
& i would not have this new confidence
if i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work
in these attempts at blasting through that thick skin of yours
in my attempts at touching your soul.
:)C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
We need better tools for organizing, sir.-M: This is a deserate situation because peoples’woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
Please consider registering & participating in my CLD2 voting program, or at least on the BBS i just set up.
I know you do not like my CLD2 voting program.
But presently, i believe it can serve our mutual purpose
for building concensus on vital issues.
If & when your SD2 program comes on line;
i promise i will share all data with you,
or any reputable others in this forum;
& i will bust ass in my attempts to see
any specific advantages which SD2 has over CLD2;
& if i find them, i will drop CLD2 & enthusiastically use SD2.
We are in a spiritual war-zone here, sir.
A musket is better that no defensive weaponry at all.
And we have a spiritual-duty to wage this battle
with what tools the universe has provided us with;
NOW.
I am not really familiar with that situation,-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar.I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.C: Interesting link.
“Patience”, young sir. This is the dawn of the age of aquarius.M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/C: Well said.-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?:We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
We take what tools are available to us,
we mold & forge & fashion them into
implements for with which to wage this spiritual battle,
& with crystal clear karma we go fucking ballistic
at the enemies of all honest people on this planet.
The arabs have a saying, which i like, similar to: “If a man dies in a holy war, he goes straight to heaven”.
If our karma is clean when we move, & if we die during those moves; we need not concern ourselves with any other considerations; what-so-ever.
Our day will come, young sir. “Patience”.
This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charlesand L.Di.She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew therewas something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9.“Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive andbenevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
I have many sad memories also.
The battle is ahead of us, young sir.
Our minds & hearts must be constantly preparing for that future battle.
Sadness over the past is an indulgence which a good solder can not afford.
That is not the point in question, young sir.such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organizesecretly if they want to.
Lets let that one go, for now, also, please.M: People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).C: You are entitled to your opinion. I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.-M: I never said that it was only an economic concern.
Well, i do think there are other aspects involved.C: The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them. Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct,they have just modernly morphed …-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on commoneconomic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wageslavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
And on that ‘family organizing imperialism’ point;
here is a mind-blower for you, if you have not already seen it:
http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_satanic_bloodlines.htm
http://www.whale.to/b/sp/bloodlines.html
“Let Justice be done, tho the heavens them-selves may fall”.
Chuck …
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpreted in a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.
-M: I say it has these two charateristics:1. 50%+1 of the population are eligiable voters2. The in-degree(counting)algorithmDo you disagree with this?
C: No. I consider “popularly-based democracy” to be a redundant phrase.Imho, all True “Democracy” is “Popularly Based”.
-M: Democracy means ‘rule by the people’ You now must think that rep-democracies aren’t democracies. This puts you in left-field.
C: I only used the phrase to differentiate this concept from the artificial look-alike puppet-democracies which the neocon/imperialists own & manipulate.
-M: Lets say ‘currupted democracy’ vs. ‘uncorrupted democracy’.
C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others.You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”. If that is your assumption, it is in error.Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of 100 possible maximum weighted approval.-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves.If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.
C: Ummm. Maybe. Your term “Interval” seems displaced. But it is a direct factor in the total ofthe power of the final vote counted, so i suppose we may be on the same page.
-M: This is an example of a first-order algorithm.
C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.So your critique that the CLD2 process i(s) only “counting” is in error,sir.
-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, and ends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
C: Well, yea. I did not realize that was how you were “counting”. This certainly is not a direct/simplified form of “counting”.-M: This is the same form of counting. You have only arbitrarily predetermined ‘counting’ to be whole numbers in intervals of one.
C: But now that we finally seem to be comprehending each other’s terminologies clearly;
can you explain why this simple CLD2 weighted-voting model should be rejected by reasonable people as a valuable tool in promoting “responsible self-government”?
-M: Because it is about the same algorithm as before, the lemming algorithm.
C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist dayto explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable meto respond more intelligently,instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so I don’t need an apology.)
C: I am glad that you appreciated my impassioned terminology. I do desire a nice & brotherly relationship with you.
C: But we still have remaining points of contention, good sir. And im sure you comprehend that there are some issues which i simply can not compromise on. In particular, please help me achieve concensus with you concerning how most honorably to respond to
the presence of my CLD2 voting program.
-M: OK.
M: The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degree algorithm, which determines the center of a social network with the depth of only one order.
C: I really need a more detailed explanation here, sir.
-M: It is majoritarian, and most people are lemmings – this yields lemmingism.
M: This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
C: Those are two different critiques; the first of which seems to me to be the only critique of any possible substance. Let me elaborate on how i see the program optimally being used. […]Now can you tell me Why this process should be considered as not being 100 % efficient for this small community of people in selecting their own township leader?
-M: Its still based on counting, so the lemmings are simply going to chose lesser lemmings.
C: It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of the desired needs of the common people there-in. I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people using this voting program in this way, as you above words seem to imply, sir. Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.
-M: Because the representation is limited to one level arbitrarily. By contrast PageRank is an adaptive multi-order algorithm that can generate multi-levels of hierarchy.
C: And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance, then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?
-M: I am not making efficency an issue, just quality.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lying issues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.
C: I have frequently found myself in the same position.But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to thesuperior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed tosticks.
-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in group situations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually like to see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
C: Agreed. 100 %. But it is like surgery. The sticks are like scalpels. One needs to be “surgically-precise” in his application. Misapplication is serious bad-karma.-M: Agreed on all points. And you are welcome to point out misapplication.
C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools ofthe un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds of elitists (because they both work sustainably), while deception is the trademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the short term gains that the parasite wants.
C: Again; 100 % agreement.-M: OK. (You did concede to one of my points. (I am not used to people conceding this easily.) If you are aware of this, you get good sport points.)
C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic; but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristicof a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important"Trust" in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argumentconcerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with theopposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhapspoorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. Thenatural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; toaccommodate his followers, imho.
-M: I make no compromises.
C: There is a time and place for such fervent devotion to truth & justice. Granting a proud but simple country farmer his pride by making a token-concession to his uneducated but common use of words,will enable the collective-spirit of the movement to gain momentum,…
-M: I am creating a new order where token concessions and appeasement to lemmingism will no longer be needed.
C:…and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english. You are an adult, Mark. You do what you believe is best.
But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader, if you just were just not quite such a hard-ass.
M: LOL! Being a hard-ass is my online persona. It is fun.
In meat-space, I am very lovable. :)
C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly,their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
C: There are times and places to be hard-asses. I can fill that role with the best; as you will see if you hang with me long enough. But the men who are your foot soldiers, who are marching into battle with you/us; are not the ones who you need to be focusing your hard-ass energy against.
-M: I am being a hard-ass mainly toward those who I am fairly certain won’t be doing programming for SD2.
C: That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy; & only is to be used amongst your troops
when they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid as to directly aid that enemy.
-M: By advocating DD, they are directly aiding the enemy. I am trying to undo the enemy propaganda that has led to this. A good example is the book: “The Authoritarian Personality” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393311120/
This book tries to make an authoritative case against authority. This book was popular with the 60’s counterculture movement, and has helped to lead to degeneracy, such as the elite anti-elitism displayed by DDers.
C: We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.
-M: Rock on.
C: And there are plenty of opportunities to get verbally-abusive on some of the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum. But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them; and they are blocking concensus well after they have clearly been adequately indulged in their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.
-M: With SD2, progress would not be delayed.
C: See these long posts i make? It takes time & energy to develop concensus among good/proud men. It takes work. It takes humility, going the extra mile. Explaining your position ‘idiot proof’.
Wrestling with concepts, & forging new terms for your target audience, such as ‘hamiltonian elitist days’.
-M: By contrast, I whup people for their own good, then I rub their nose in it.(Not quite, but this sounds funny.)
C: Im glad that struck your heart. That was precisely what i wanted.
M: :)
C: Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you. Now i can get in your face, respectfully; and tell you that i need better explanations;
& i can realistically can expect that you are going to make a serious
attempt at explaining things to me.
But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark; & i would not have
this new confidence
if i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work in these attempts at
blasting through that thick skin of yours in my attempts at touching
your soul.
-M: Kinda trippy, but I like your style.
Learn these algorithms: closeness, betweeness, and degree. Also learn
what a markov-chain is.
Prepare to tell me the difference between a 2nd and 3rd order Markov
algorithm.
Use Google like I did to learn all of this.
C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
:)
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
-M: This is a desperate situation because peoples’ woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.
C:[…] If & when your SD2 program comes on line; i promise i will share all data with you,or any reputable others in this forum; & i will bust ass in my attempts to see any specific advantages which SD2 has over CLD2; & if i find them, i will drop CLD2 & enthusiastically use SD2.
M: Sporty! :)
C: We are in a spiritual war-zone here, sir. A musket is better that no defensive weaponry at all.
And we have a spiritual-duty to wage this battle with what tools the
universe has provided us with;
NOW.
M: :)
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.C: Interesting link.
-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar.I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.
C: I am not really familiar with that situation, but from the class circles which you describe,i would estimate about 90 % chance Kamur has full knowledge of the bad karma
-M: Lord Northampton, who is second highest in British Freemasonry, is a Buddhist. Also Masonry is institutionally close to Golden Dawn, which uses Yogic models.
Maybe they don’t think they are evil. Maybe they justify their ways to themselves, and think that they are protecting the lemmings from themselves. Maybe they think that they have good karma.
M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Well said.
-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?:We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
C: “Patience”, young sir. This is the dawn of the age of aquarius. We need to keep our karma clean at every juncture.
-M: LOL!
C: We observe the tools around us which the universe had s provided us with to accomplish our needed work in this time & place. We take what tools are available to us, we mold & forge & fashion them into implements for with which to wage this spiritual battle, & with crystal clear karma we go fucking ballistic at the enemies of all honest people on this planet.
-M: I like you.
C: The arabs have a saying, which i like, similar to: “If a man dies in a holy war, he goes straight to heaven”. If our karma is clean when we move, & if we die during those moves; we need not concern ourselves with any other considerations; what-so-ever. Our day will come, young sir.
“Patience”.
M: :)
M: This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charlesand L.Di. She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew therewas something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9. “Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive and benevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”
I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
C: I have many sad memories also. The battle is ahead of us, young sir. Our minds & hearts must be constantly preparing for that future battle. Sadness over the past is an indulgence which a good solder can not afford.
M: :)
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]
-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organize secretly if they want to.
[…]
-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wage slavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
C: Well, i do think there are other aspects involved. But basically, “Yes”; especially on the families organizing point. And on that ‘family organizing imperialism’ point; here is a mind-blower for you, if you have not already seen it:http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_satanic_bloodlines.htm http://www.whale.to/b/sp/bloodlines.html “Let Justice be done, tho the heavens them-selves may fall”. Chuck …
-M: They don’t have to be satanic or shape-shifting-reptilians(Icke), simply being humans with entrenched power is trouble enough.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Please elaborate.-M: Because it appears to be in-degree (lemming) based. :-(M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
I have put a lot of work into this program.
If there is something seriously wrong with it,
i will try to fix it.
But i can not even respond intelligently
when you have used so few words
to so ambiguously describe your critique.
The lemmings have no money with which to pay us.-M: Yes it is,because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of peoplewill occur without direct effort on our part.C: I agree that once the process is running,that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity.But i do not consider attempting to market our ideasin the capitalistic profit-oriented business communityto be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
Also; it is hard to be motivated by altruism
when you are fighting hunger-pangs in your stomach.
This is another point not worthy of long debate,
at least at his beginning stage.
I suggest we discontinue it, & save it for later.
“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enoughC: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.-M: Just because you are for the common peopledoesn’t mean that they are for you and each other.
If we do not attempt to provide the common people with
what we personally know that they truly need,
then we are being incompetent natural-aristocrat/elitists,
and we do not deserve to be entrusted withe positions of leadership
which we are presently exercising, by default.
The lemmings will thank us
when they become sufficiently educated
to realize what we have done for them.
We are saving them from the massive-suicide cliff-jump; whether they like it or not.
Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
You previously said (basically) that
they are hungry for political power,
and that they will gobble it up, if given the chance.
That is good enough for me.
charles …
oregon …
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,
C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
-M: Because it appears to be in-degree (lemming) based. :-(
C: Please elaborate. This issue is very important to me., I have put a lot of work into this program.If there is something seriously wrong with it, i will try to fix it. But i can not even respond intelligently
-M: I did say that democracy is composed of three components:
And I did say that the only issue now is one of centrality algorithms. Apparently others here don’t have to respond to my points.
Your DD system has the indegree(counting) algorithm which is
arbitrarily first-order.
If you don’t understand what I just said, research to your heart’s
content:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of peoplewill occur without direct effort on our part.
C: I agree that once the process is running,that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity.But i do not consider attempting to market our ideasin the capitalistic profit-oriented business communityto be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
-M: Yes it is, because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.
C: The lemmings have no money with which to pay us.-M: Then they have little power. Perhaps we should go elsewhere.
C: And as you previously said, they are hungry for personal empowerment.
Also; it is hard to be motivated by altruism when you are fighting hunger-pangs in your stomach.
-M: Agreed, another reason why we should use the business community to furthur our voting systems.
C: This is another point not worthy of long debate, at least at his beginning stage.
I suggest we discontinue it, & save it for later.
-M: No, this line is one of effectiveness – which is very relevant.
C: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.
-M: Just because you are for the common people doesn’t mean that they are for you and each other.
C: "I know no safe depositary of
the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves;
and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from them,
but to inform their discretion by education.
This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0350.htm
If we do not attempt to provide the common people with what we personally know that they truly need,
-M: EXACTLY! What WE know that they need, and NOT what they THINK that they need.
C:..then we are being incompetent natural-aristocrat/elitists,
and we do not deserve to be entrusted withe positions of leadership which we are presently exercising, by default.
-M: Rock on.
C: The lemmings will thank us when they become sufficiently educated
to realize what we have done for them. We are saving them from the
massive-suicide cliff-jump;
whether they like it or not.
M: Charles, I think you are getting it. :)
M: Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
C: You previously said (basically) that they are hungry for political power,
and that they will gobble it up, if given the chance. That is good enough for me.
-M: OK, another option is an SD2 based political forum(this has already
been discussed.)
So maybe a two front option:
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Agreed.-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with theenemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts,C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave thenegative thoughts and start thinking positive!
so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties)
Look, Mark.
You are an American, so i fell i can speak more plainly with you,
without being concerned for language barriers.
Further, I have been watching your posts,
& i have hesitated to comment there-on;
because i recognize that you are one of the more powerful debaters here-in,
and that you seem to often win-by-default
& frequently more so (imho) because of
the boldness & power of your chosen words
as opposed to the logic &/or reasonableness of them.
Now i do recognize that in many profound areas
that you do have the ‘redeeming virtue’ of
very valuable & powerful insight.
But, in my mind & heart,
this does not mitigate the fact that
there are numerous instances where you are
just flat wrong in the issues debated there-in.
To your credit, it is my humble opinion that
your opponents are frequently “wrong” also,
with the correct answer lying some-where
in between your two opinions.
Entering into debate with you on these points
only causes me pause because of the obvious
negative-energy which will be blasted across our forum,
if we two powerful debaters really go at each other intensely.
Other members here-in are already complaining that
our discussions are getting too intense for their sensitivities.
If we enter into serious hard-ball debate,
there is no telling what kind of trauma this may cause the others.
I have avoided debate, at least in very large part, because of this specific reason.
My only other reason, is that i do not see much
real serious tangible progress being made in all of these debates,
& believe it or not, i do have a separate life from all of this,
& there are things i am doing in those other realms
which also have similar potentials to provoke
the very significant social changes which i believe we all support.
Here-under; I believe that it is clear that we need to develop better methodologies for Efficient “Conflict Resolution”.
I would respectfully request, again;
that you & the others who have not done so;
begin registering & voting in response to the questions/propositions posed
in the directdemocraticgov CCL2 voting program
which i have taken the time & energy to establish for this group; here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/index.php
If it is a point of concern, I will do all in my power to insure that the raw mysql data-base data is shared with all on this list.
But again here-under, it is my experience, that
when everyones responses to our intense concerns
are made self-evident through the spreadsheet displays
of everyones answers to these questions,
that this significantly decreases the impulse to
“shout louder” in efforts to attempt to provoke
some form of recognition for the debaters individual position.
I have asked you & the others to participate here-in before;
or in the alternative,
to give some reasonable constructive-criticism
as to Why this process which i have developed
is not capable of (at least temporarily) filling our needs.
I have gotten only a few registrations,
and only 1 person actually voting (Thanks Emmanuel).
I need to inform you & the others that
this seeming boycott of my hard work in
what seems to be our stated areas of mutual concern,
with zero feed-back as to why this apparent boycott is in place,
causes me to feel that i am on the receiving end
of some very negative energy.
You-all are talking a very fine talk about
how you-all support this “totally open” process;
but when it comes time to state clearly in a permanent ballot format
precisely where you stand on a number of issues hotly debated here-in,
all of a sudden almost none of you are willing
to actually display your personal beliefs in this “totally open” manner.
And the real kicker is that you refuse to share your constructive-criticism as to “Why” you are not participating there-in.
This causes me to consider that
this entire group may never be able to actually do
anything more than Talk about all of these wonderful concepts.
This unavoidable concern makes me sad.
On another point, i now see that
we are getting criticism for making too long of posts.
I can see merit to that concern,
& so i will end this part here,
and address the other remaining concerns of your email here
in a separate post.
Charles …
shantiMark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.
mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave thenegative thoughts and start thinking positive!
-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with theenemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts,
C: Agreed.
M:… so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties)
C: Look, Mark. You are an American, so i fell i can speak more plainly with you,without being concerned for language barriers. Further, I have been watching your posts, & i have hesitated to comment there-on; because i recognize that you are one of the more powerful debaters here-in,
-M: I am a seasoned and successful debator.
C: …and that you seem to often win-by-default & frequently more so (imho) because of the boldness & power of your chosen words,
-M: I start with ‘shock and awe’…
C:…as opposed to the logic &/or reasonableness of them.
-M: …and to those who don’t get scared away, I can back my arguments with reason and logic.
C: Now i do recognize that in many profound areas that you do have the ‘redeeming virtue’ of
very valuable & powerful insight. But, in my mind & heart, this does
not mitigate the fact that
there are numerous instances where you are just flat wrong in the
issues debated there-in.
-M: Then JUMP IN and try to prove me wrong.(I do have experience with DDers.)
C: To your credit, it is my humble opinion that your opponents are frequently “wrong” also,
with the correct answer lying some-where in between your two opinions.
Entering into debate with you on these points
only causes me pause because of the obvious negative-energy which will
be blasted across our forum,
if we two powerful debaters really go at each other intensely.
-M: The truth is only negative to those who make it negative. To achieve sociocultural evolutionary advancement, we should have the BEST arguments possible.
C: Other members here-in are already complaining that our discussions are getting too intense for their sensitivities.
-M: Revolutions are not for the sensitive.
C: If we enter into serious hard-ball debate, there is no telling what kind of trauma this may cause the others.
-M: The overly sensitive have the option to leave. People, if you are sensitive, be prepared for people who will want to HURT you for trying to help them. This is how people are. No amount of wishful thinking will stop this. If you want to make the world better(and actually be effective) be prepared to make significant sacrifices.
C: I have avoided debate, at least in very large part, because of this specific reason. My only other reason, is that i do not see much
real serious tangible progress being made in all of these debates,[…]
-M: I agree – I did try to steer discourse toward centrality algorithms
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Strictly speaking, i do not support direct democracy.
I seek to achieve the same ends,C: Now i do recognize that in many profound areas that you do have the ‘redeeming virtue’ of
very valuable & powerful insight. But, in my mind & heart, this doesnot mitigate the fact thatthere are numerous instances where you are just flat wrong in theissues debated there-in.-M: Then JUMP IN and try to prove me wrong.(I do have experience with DDers.)
through "immediate-recall, in the
common-law deep-democratic (CLD2) hierarchy.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/World12Divisions.html
Vary well-said.C: To your credit, it is my humble opinion that your opponents are frequently “wrong” also,with the correct answer lying some-where in between your two opinions.Entering into debate with you on these pointsonly causes me pause because of the obvious negative-energy which willbe blasted across our forum,if we two powerful debaters really go at each other intensely.-M: The truth is only negative to those who make it negative.To achieve sociocultural evolutionary advancement, we should have theBEST arguments possible.
We agree.C: Other members here-in are already complaining that our discussions are getting too intense for their sensitivities.-M: Revolutions are not for the sensitive.
“life is short.
art is long,
opportunity fleeting,
experiment dangerous,
judgment difficult.”
You do have “redeeming virtues”, Mark. :)C: If we enter into serious hard-ball debate, there is no telling what kind of trauma this may cause the others.-M: The overly sensitive have the option to leave.
People, if you are sensitive, be prepared for people who will want toHURT you for trying to help them. This is how people are. No amount of wishful thinking will stop this. If you want to make the world better (and actually be effective) be prepared to make significant sacrifices.
Again; well-said.
I am not a mathematician.C: I have avoided debate, at least in very large part,because of this specific reason. My only other reason, is that i do not see muchreal serious tangible progress being made in all of these debates,[…]-M: I agree – I did try to steer discourse toward centrality algorithms- progress toward this has been painfully slow.There is still way too much ideological mush here.
I suggest others may be confused on that term also. I suggest you either couple it with more common terms, or delete its usage in favor of the more common terms.
I have learned that in order to communicate withe the broadest spectrum of people, it is best to take the time & energy to make my arguments “idiot-proof”.
Please, assist in cutting through the “ideological mush”.
shalom
charles …
shantiMark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
C: I have avoided debate, at least in very large part,because of this specific reason. My only other reason, is that i do not see muchreal serious tangible progress being made in all of these debates,[…]
-M: I agree – I did try to steer discourse toward centrality algorithms – progress toward this has been painfully slow. There is still way too much ideological mush here.
C: I am not a mathematician. I am confused as to your intended use of the tem “algorithm” I suggest others may be confused on that term also.I suggest you either couple it with more common terms, or delete its usage in favor of the more common terms. I have learned that in order to communicate withe the broadest spectrum of people, it is best to take the time & energy to make my arguments “idiot-proof”. Please, assist in cutting through the “ideological mush”. shalom charles …
-M: Voting with decisive results is the algorithmic processing of affective data.
Votes are affective data, counting and looking for 50%+1 thresholds
or the highest counts are the indegree algorithm.
Other algorithms(mathematical process that yields an output)can be used
to determine centrality of a social network.
SD2 uses PageRank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Markus Schatten wrote:
Dear Charles——- Original Messagesome one controls the google and yahoo account passwords. that person or persons are in control of the forum.-— From: “charles.opensource” <charles@opensourcegov.us>To: <top-politics@yahoogroups.com>; <gale1@vip.hr>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:00 PMSubject: [top-politics] Re: … The Future of this List …
As I see it this is a concensus based heterarchy ;-)
i support concensus seeking 100 %.
but i believe your “heterarchy” model
is impractical with numbers larger then 12,
because those larger numbers will make
concensus an unobtainable goal.
a hierarchy is the only functional model, imho.
good.mS:- I fully agree to this.G:- I do need to trust you about this issue.If you say do it, that I believe that is the real thing.C:- “Trust” is at the center of everything, yes.Nothing can be built in communities of people without “Trust”.
i do not personally have root access.mS:- Well if you have root access to your server
but i am on very good terms with
and personally know the young-man (Scott)
who does control the root access,
and i am sure he can do the install for us.
i only need to know
where to tell him to find the wiki program we wish to install,
and under which domain we want it installed
(i.e. you can install your own software) than you certainly can host wiki systems. BTW. If you have root access, maybe this would be a great place for our testing platform?
i believe we can get our own programs set-up.
i believe there is 98 % chance that
on our servers we can accomplish all that we desire.
If you are still interested to help, of course ;-))
i am willing to endure a lot of abuse
to make this all work. :)
can i trust you? :)mS:- Also agree here. So can we trust you? ;-))
If yes, would you agree that we create an new domain (i.e. www.top-politics.org)
yes. you need to purchase the domain name,
& rout it to our nameserver addresses, which are:
DNS1,TIMBERLINENETWORKS.COM
DNS2.TIMBERLINENETWORKS.COM
when i get a statement that
our potential administrator has done this,
i will set up the hosting accounts on the server.
and you give us (developers) limited access to the part we need for development?
I can not give you root or ssh access.
I can give you full ftp & cpanel access.
I am not personally worried about back-up copies.C:- 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 keptfor insertion into any system which eventually we choose.Well since we get all messages on our e-mails (especially from you since you send me double or triple ones ;-)) I think back-up is no problem.
you seem not concerned with back-up copies also.
If others agree, we can move quickly.
Neither do i.mS:- Well I actually realy don’t like the military,
their terms and anything that has to do with weapons.
You sound like a “pacifist”.
Is that true?
So I rather like information engineering terms since they are more adequate and precise.
military terms are very precise.
think of artillery.
good.C:- 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.mS:- I agree.
we disagree.C:- 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.mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highly probable that they will come soon
Talking about hostile people
only increases our ability to defend against them.
And while that may provoke a pre-emptive attack,
i believe chances are greater that such talk
will work to obstruct such attacks,
especially in the longer-terms.
and try to destroy us.
They only want to destroy those whom they can-not enslave.
since you seem to be a pacifist (?)
you may be safe.
Leave the negative thoughts and start thinking positive!
Thinking delusionally is not “thinking positive”.
Realistically recognizing the true nature of
the evil which oppresses us,
is not “negative thinking”;
it is merely “realistic thinking”.
but if such terminology traumatizes your pacifist sensitivities, i will attempt to avoid such terms.
I believe that would be the most efficient process, yes.C:- It may be good to keep the old Yahoo system in place;like for 6 months or so, just in case where we move tois under the control of people who hate our work.mS:- Well, I’d rather make local back-up copies and shut the old system down so we do not get a segmented disscusion.
This should be a primary implementation issue -allways leave the possibility to easily make local backup.
Agreed.
BTW: this is implemented in squishdot
I know not your term “squishdot”.
since every message posted is forwarded to e-mail on will.
i do not comprehend.
And, Charles please stop talking about hate, and other negative stuff.
Can i talk about “delusional naivety”? :)
If you & the others will show better “good-faith”
by voting in the directdemocratic CLD2 voting program;
then i will not be feeling so frustrated
in my personally desired goals,
& i will then correspondingly attempt to
avoid such terms as offend your pacifistic sensitivities.
Only positive collaboration atmosphere brings results.
“delusional naivety” in our collaboration atmosphere is not the equal of a “positive” collaboration atmosphere.
there are other solutions.mS:- Yes, only by the admin, but whats with the rest? Since here are about 6-7 different initiatives in a network this means that from every initiative one representative should have the admin password ;-)))
as long as admin is obligated
to make frequent distributions of back-ups of all files
& admin could be displaced by immediate-recall
as a result of a low “vote of confidence”,
then he could be entrusted with singular possession of the password.
I think it’s easier to program a script or somethingwhich will do this automatically so no admin-access would be needed.
this also sounds good, yes.
our desire for freedom & empowerment is normal, yes.mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process.
This is not war!If you think negative you attract negative energy
Well, our situation is not presently violent,
at least not against us, yet.
but above you said that,
if i attempt to discuss these matters in
“totally open” manners, then:
“it is highly probable that they will come soon and attempt to destroy us”.
is discussing the real-world implications of
tienimin square, or adolph hitler,
or the war in iraq, “thinking negative”?
i argue that these are very real concerns,
and that to avoid all discussion of them
is to capitulate to the very evil forces which perpetuate them.
now, if we can begin voting on these issues,
and segmenting our discussions,
then i can make conscious choices to
not discuss specific topics with you,
& the others, according to their/your preferences,
because i know which topics are too traumatic
for specific individuals to communicate about.
but for you to just tell me to
not discuss a broad range of topics in this group,
simply because you find such discussions “negative”,
is a proposition which i find very hostile to
our groups stated goals of “totally open” process.
stated differently,
give me some “alternative out-let”
for my concerns by voting in the CLD2 program.
when i find this is the only forum available
to advance my very real and honest concerns,
then i get frustrated, and then
this is the only forum for me to find out-let in.
(there is scientific evidence of that),
i know the under-lying truth of which you speak.
but i believe you mis-apply the scientific data.
so think positive
i am “thinking positive”,
just not naive.
and maybe people will get used to trust you more.
i am not going to pretend to be something which i am not.
i want everyone to know that they can ask me any question, and i will tell them precisely what i believe on that matter.
if i begin pretending i am something which i am not, that undermines our previously agreed-on commitment to building “Trust”.
grand words are easily spoken by any lemming.C:- Saying that, i leave the decision to you, & the others; respectfully.mS:- :-))) Be aware of the situation that no one is in charge here, but we all are, even you ;-)
actions speak much louder than words.
please answer the questions on CLD2, here:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/index.php
charles.
Best regardsMarkus Schatten, dipl. inf.e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hrhttp://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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Oooohhhhhh, can’t we stop quting like this…
Try to read previous post.
How many do you think have the energy to do it and understand…?
Try to write short postings instead with one question + a new question
in as a maximum..
I’m not trying to moderate here, more kindly ask you to make my reading
a little easier. Hopefully it will help others too.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Agreed.
This what we have in this moment is pretty non transparent way of communication that tends toward exclusion.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
<charles@…> wrote:
geoerdeaen wrote:corporations,—- 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
knowYes.I perceive them as being equal.such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, or AOL.OK. This means Yahoo=Google Right?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 thesedomains.http://directdemocraticgov.org/http://opensourcegov.us/I have to say what worries me. Do not get me wrong. I do not
responsibility here.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
Oh no. I am not. Though, some previous experience in politics made me highly respect quality and potential of this group. It made me approach to this issue carefully. I do not wish this group looses itself almost before its opened due to not needed rush. Happened too many times before, sad to say :-(
I thought it was Marcus, & i made similar offers to him earlier,
privately.
I am glad that mystery is now clear.softwareI 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
thisfor our further discussns. Involving wiki and stuff. I share
with us.idea with him. I supose some other members share this vision
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.fully.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
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 keptfor insertion into any system which eventually we choose.These files should be fairly generic/interchangeableso that they can be installed in what-ever systems we eventuallychoose.
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 commonpeople,
and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to dothat.
It may be good to keep the old Yahoo system in place;like for 6 months or so, just in case where we move tois 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 tothe world.
In military terms, & keeping in mind that we are keeping back-upsof our files,
even if the agents of evil destroy our forum; we can quickly findanother forum,
& plug-in our backed-up files there, so that in pragmatic/militaryterms
our information-infrastructure would only be down for a few weeksat most.
On my server, we have programs which can automatically send anemail to you
with that days current copy of the entire email list.Further, copies of the archives of all past emails to the listcan can be regularly copied & saved by the administrator.Same with the PHP-BB BBS system.warfare.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
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 pricesevery day that workable solutions to the worlds problems aredelayed.
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.Yes, you are :-)
Yet. I can notice several issues that need to be adequtally discussed in order to gain desired legitimacy they need.
ATB,
Gale
The decision is yours.Respectfully;Charles …ATB,GaleThese are links which illustrate the email and bbs programsavailable:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://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/
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
I do agree we need more discussion,Our planet & its people pay significant pricesevery day that workable solutions to the worlds problems aredelayed.
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.Yes, you are :-)Yet. I can notice several issues that need to be adequtally discussed in order to gain desired legitimacy they need.
charles …
ATB,GaleThe decision is yours.Respectfully;Charles …Yahoo! Groups LinksATB,GaleThese are links which illustrate the email and bbs programsavailable:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://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/
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
Can we please first decide whter to stay here or to move somewhere
else
with better functionality of the forum.For now I vote for this:http://groups.google.se/group/top-politicsAnyone against it?Lets see whats up. On groups.se, these are the members: echarp emmanuel.charpentier (Emmanuel) geoerdeaen (Gale) karlmb (Karl) magnusgus mschatte (Markus) vidyagama (Mark)
On yahoo.com, these are the members:
benkramer1
gywst
k_hammermueller
emmanuel.cha…
imp_print
jp_venables
charles8854
krshantek
n_dietrich
rstuven
top-politics@…
karlmb
jdaviescoates
lpc1998yh
parashakti108
pether_sorling
geoerdeaen
nakitu_minay…
among them, these are the members that contributed with more than 2 e-mails:
pether_sorling
parashakti108
nakitu_minay…
lpc1998yh
geoerdeaen
karlmb
emmanuel.cha…
k_hammermueller
charles8854
jdaviescoates has one e-mail on this group with some announcment.
martinvaxjo sadly left group not showing big interest in groups future.
Active emmbers who havent joined google are:
Eric (lpc1998yh)
Klaus (k_hammermueller)
Pether (pether_sorling)
Charles (charles8854)
Pether, if I understand correctly says YES:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/251
This means we need response of Eric, Klaus and Charles.
One more thing to have in mind.
Karl and Markus are eager to move it to some more adequate interface.
Emmanuel has no problem with moving, still says better is google.
Gale believe that we shall need some other interface pretty soon, but not rushing.
I suppose that if Eric, Klaus or Charles do not have big problems of moving to google, we should move there acknowledging desire of other members. If they have some problems, we can stay here waiting better times. :-)
As long as I invited Eric to this group, I would really like his opinion about moving to new group. That is my concern. Klaus and Charles are not my direct concern even though we need these guys up there.
ATB,
Gale
Until this is decide, I will not answer any new posts in this list.BR/Karl (Mange)
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
Gale, many thanks for your reminder. I have just joined Google Top-politics, English version (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/about). There is another language version at http://groups.google.se/group/top-politics
Sorry for the slow response owing to heavy work commitments. Best Regards Eric Limgeoerdeaen <gale1@vip.hr> wrote:
- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “Karl” <magnusgus@…> wrote:
Can we please first decide whter to stay here or to move somewhereelse
with better functionality of the forum.For now I vote for this:http://groups.google.se/group/top-politicsAnyone against it?Lets see whats up. On groups.se, these are the members:
echarp
emmanuel.charpentier (Emmanuel)
geoerdeaen (Gale)
karlmb (Karl)
magnusgus
mschatte (Markus)
vidyagama (Mark)
On yahoo.com, these are the members:
benkramer1
gywst
k_hammermueller
emmanuel.cha…
imp_print
jp_venables
charles8854
krshantek
n_dietrich
rstuven
top-politics@…
karlmb
jdaviescoates
lpc1998yh
parashakti108
pether_sorling
geoerdeaen
nakitu_minay…
among them, these are the members that contributed with more than 2 e-mails:
pether_sorling
parashakti108
nakitu_minay…
lpc1998yh
geoerdeaen
karlmb
emmanuel.cha…
k_hammermueller
charles8854
jdaviescoates has one e-mail on this group with some announcment.
martinvaxjo sadly left group not showing big interest in groups future.
Active emmbers who havent joined google are:
Eric (lpc1998yh)
Klaus (k_hammermueller)
Pether (pether_sorling)
Charles (charles8854)
Pether, if I understand correctly says YES:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/251
This means we need response of Eric, Klaus and Charles.
One more thing to have in mind.
Karl and Markus are eager to move it to some more adequate interface.
Emmanuel has no problem with moving, still says better is google.
Gale believe that we shall need some other interface pretty soon, but not rushing.
I suppose that if Eric, Klaus or Charles do not have big problems of moving to google, we should move there acknowledging desire of other members. If they have some problems, we can stay here waiting better times. :-)
As long as I invited Eric to this group, I would really like his opinion about moving to new group. That is my concern. Klaus and Charles are not my direct concern even though we need these guys up there.
ATB,
Gale
Until this is decide, I will not answer any new posts in this list.BR/Karl (Mange)
+0
New discussion
Answer
Gale, many thanks for your reminder. I have just joined Google Top-
politics, English version (http://groups.google.com/group/top- politics/about). There is another language version at http://groups.google.se/group/top-politics
Thank you very much, Eric.
Sorry for the slow response owing to heavy work commitments.
No problem. You waited for me several months, remember? :-)
ATB,
Gale
Best RegardsEric Limgeoerdeaen <gale1@…> wrote:—- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “Karl” <magnusgus@> wrote:somewhereCan we please first decide whter to stay here or to move
else2with better functionality of the forum.For now I vote for this:http://groups.google.se/group/top-politicsAnyone against it?Lets see whats up. On groups.se, these are the members:echarpemmanuel.charpentier (Emmanuel)geoerdeaen (Gale)karlmb (Karl)magnusgus mschatte (Markus)vidyagama (Mark) On yahoo.com, these are the members:benkramer1 gywst k_hammermueller emmanuel.cha… imp_print jp_venables charles8854 krshantek n_dietrich rstuven top-politics@karlmb jdaviescoates lpc1998yh parashakti108 pether_sorling geoerdeaennakitu_minay… among them, these are the members that contributed with more than
e-mails:pether_sorling parashakti108 nakitu_minay… lpc1998yh geoerdeaen karlmb emmanuel.cha… k_hammermueller charles8854 jdaviescoates has one e-mail on this group with some announcment.martinvaxjo sadly left group not showing big interest in groups future.Active emmbers who havent joined google are: Eric (lpc1998yh)Klaus (k_hammermueller)Pether (pether_sorling)Charles (charles8854)Pether, if I understand correctly says YES:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/251This means we need response of Eric, Klaus and Charles. One more thing to have in mind.Karl and Markus are eager to move it to some more adequateinterface.
Emmanuel has no problem with moving, still says better is google.Gale believe that we shall need some other interface pretty soon, but not rushing. I suppose that if Eric, Klaus or Charles do not have big problemsof
moving to google, we should move there acknowledging desire of other members. If they have some problems, we can stay herewaiting
better times. :-)As long as I invited Eric to this group, I would really like his opinion about moving to new group. That is my concern. Klaus and Charles are not my direct concern even though we need these guysup
there. ATB,Galelist.Until this is decide, I will not answer any new posts in this
Service.BR/Karl (Mange)————————————————-YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group “top-politics” on the web.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:top-politics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
————————————————-
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
My idea is to combine news(like
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),
with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,
into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).
The idea is to have a Wikipedia in which entries can be overriden by those that are higher ranked, and news articles can be given a PageRank and editorial commentary by those of high rank.
People would aquire rank in the Commentary Section through debates, comments and modifications which they would put into their portfolio, from which they would recieve endorsement votes from others.
They would be ranked by the number of endorsements multipled by the average strength of the votes, both numbers of which would be posted with the user’s profile.
People, how feasable would it be to fuse phpBB with MediaWiki, in which the editors are selected by an SD2 process?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.
I do not believe in enabling only one procedure as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process, enabling decadency of the process.
So, if we are going to create site together, even I do support SD-2 as actually only voting mechanism I find be good for heterarchies in this very moment, we have to enable spontanious optimisation of this procedure by those who wll have the guts to start optimisation in the moment they will find be proper. I want to enable really the best lead this process, which means no dogmatic systems (sd-2 or nothing stuff), but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.
Is it fine with you?
The idea is to have a Wikipedia in which entries can be overriden bythose that are higher ranked, and news articles can be given a PageRankand editorial commentary by those of high rank.
OK. I suppose this will be better than clasical system. Shall it be the best, I doubt. So, I find it be suitable for leading process in this very moment, till the next bird in the flock takes its lead.
People would aquire rank in the Commentary Section through debates,comments and modifications which they would put into their portfolio,from which they would recieve endorsement votes from others.
What I miss here is operational quality which is pretty important part of any organisation.Do you have this in your mind?
They would be ranked by the number of endorsements multipled by theaverage strength of the votes, both numbers of which would be postedwith the user’s profile.People, how feasable would it be to fuse phpBB with MediaWiki, in whichthe editors are selected by an SD2 process?
Actually, what sort of publishing info you have in mind?
ATB,
Gale
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).
G: I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.-M: ‘win’ – under what environment?(There will always be a dominant selective system, and it is usually 50%+1, which I want to avoid.)
G: I do not believe in enabling only one procedure…
-M: There will always be a dominant procedure – this is inescapeable - so what do you choose?
G: as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process,…
-M: The only disablement of autopoiosis is when the most autopoietic system is deselected, which is SD2.
G: enabling decadency of the process.
-M: Then don’t deselect SD2.
G: So, if we are going to create site together, even I do support SD-2 as actually only voting mechanism I find be good for heterarchies in this very moment, we have to enable spontanious optimisation of this procedure by those who wll have the guts to start optimisation in the moment they will find be proper. I want to enable really the best lead this process, which means no dogmatic systems (sd-2 or nothing stuff),…
-M: People usually choose 50%+1 or nothing. Whatever system you choose is going to be that system or nothing.
G:…but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.
-M: There is no such thing as pluralism – whatever selective system is used is singular, even if its selecting among multiple systems.
G: Is it fine with you?
-M: I am being asked to ignore the fact that other systems are being
priviledged over SD2 from the beginning.
I am also being dogmaticly asked to take a dogmatic stance against
dogmatism.(Pain.)
M: The idea is to have a Wikipedia in which entries can be overriden by those that are higher ranked, and news articles can be given a PageRank and editorial commentary by those of high rank.
G: OK. I suppose this will be better than clasical system. Shall it be the best, I doubt. So, I find it be suitable for leading process in this very moment, till the next bird in the flock takes its lead.
-M: Fuck it. I am just going to learn Ruby. I will code it all if I have to.
People would aquire rank in the Commentary Section through debates, comments and modifications which they would put into their portfolio, from which they would recieve endorsement votes from others.
G: What I miss here is operational quality which is pretty important part of any organisation.Do you have this in your mind?
-M: Those selected would have this in mind.
They would be ranked by the number of endorsements multipled by theaverage strength of the votes, both numbers of which would be postedwith the user’s profile. People, how feasable would it be to fuse phpBB with MediaWiki, in whichthe editors are selected by an SD2 process?
G: Actually, what sort of publishing info you have in mind?
-M: Whatever the users have in mind. If I predetermined this, this might get in the way of autopoiosis.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:Actually not. There might be coexisting systems enabling better power equilibrium than one might enable. For an example. There might be autocrat John with followers who has 25% of the full societal power who needs to get into compromises with some parliament group who uses AD having 20% and your own SD2 party with 18% of the global societal power. You three having compromise on the level of concensus can decide anything. So, this is what SD2 as umbrelly can not enable and this is maybe exact scenario for the world REALITY every single system depends on.My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).G: I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.-M: ‘win’ – under what environment?(There will always be a dominantselective system, and it is usually 50%+1, which I want to avoid.)
I want to enable reality goes transparent and informational free in a manner of freeing the whole World. I want to create such system that accepts the fact he is dependent on reality, the one that is not created on glass letgs, not vice versa. If you do think that you can do whatever you want no matter how reality actually looks like, you are fre to do such thing. My personal experience tells me that ignoring the reality is the best way of running towards the global failure. This stuf happened too many times not too start looking at it a little bit more carefully.
Of course, if te world reality shows that SD2 becomes globaly adopted and dominant enough to be accepted dogmatically as long as every calculation is just aproximation of the true ratios,I wont go against it. Though, to put that attitude before realty, it does no make sense to me at all. I am not god and I do not need to play god to succeed in my mission. And you?
False.G: I do not believe in enabling only one procedure…-M: There will always be a dominant procedure – this is inescapeable -so what do you choose?
These are words of pretensios father of SD2. Do not worth much in political context. Everybody loves his own child the most, likes to think his own child is the best and there is no way that everybodies child is the best. That is the reason promotors of the political concepts need to go one step further. Can you do it? Are you able to do it? I offered you possibility, so you can not say there was no other option. Now, it is only up to your own ability of evaluatig arguments objectivly.G: as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process,…-M: The only disablement of autopoiosis is when the most autopoieticsystem is deselected, which is SD2.
It is the power that matters, not votes. It is the power we need to generate, not votes. Origins of the power can be different. Somewehre it is reputation, somewhere else it is blind charisma, somewhere else its just arguments or dogmas. Many different origins. I have no problems with this reality. You?G:…but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.-M: There is no such thing as pluralism – whatever selective system isused is singular, even if its selecting among multiple systems.
G: Is it fine with you?-M: I am being asked to ignore the fact that other systems are beingpriviledged over SD2 from the beginning.I am also being dogmaticly asked to take a dogmatic stance againstdogmatism.(Pain.)
I do not belive that you are not briliian enought to figure this paradox out, Mark.
M: The idea is to have a Wikipedia in which entries can be overriden by those that are higher ranked, and news articles can be given a PageRank and editorial commentary by those of high rank.G: OK. I suppose this will be better than clasical system. Shall it be the best, I doubt. So, I find it be suitable for leading process in this very moment, till the next bird in the flock takes its lead.-M: Fuck it. I am just going to learn Ruby. I will code it all if Ihave to.
Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).
G: I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.
-M: ‘win’ – under what environment?(There will always be a dominant selective system, and it is usually 50%+1, which I want to avoid.)
G: Actually not. There might be coexisting systems enabling better power equilibrium than one might enable. For an example. There might be autocrat John with followers who has 25% of the full societal power who needs to get into compromises with some parliament group who uses AD having 20% and your own SD2 party with 18% of the global societal power. You three having compromise on the level of concensus can decide anything. So, this is what SD2 as umbrelly can not enable and this is maybe exact scenario for the world REALITY every single system depends on.-M: You said ‘societal power’ – by what measure? You are assuming this measure to be decisive – this is the dominant system that I mentioned.
G: I want to enable reality goes transparent and informational free in a
manner of freeing the whole World. I want to create such system that accepts the fact he is dependent on reality, the one that is not created on glass letgs, not vice versa. If you do think that you can do
whatever you want no matter how reality actually looks like, you are fre to do such thing. My personal experience tells me that ignoring the
reality is the best way of running towards the global failure. This stuf happened too many times not too start looking at it a little bit more carefully.
-M: OK, am I supposed to disagree with something here?
G: Of course, if te world reality shows that SD2 becomes globaly adopted and dominant enough to be accepted dogmatically as long as every calculation is just aproximation of the true ratios,I wont go against it. Though, to put that attitude before realty, it does no make sense to me at all. I am not god and I do not need to play god to succeed in my mission. And you?
-M: I will take a position on centrality algorithms because this is nessicary, and I won’t be nebulous while pretending that nebulousness will solve problems.
G: I do not believe in enabling only one procedure…
-M: There will always be a dominant procedure – this is inescapeable – so what do you choose?
G: False.
-M: And you made this opinion with your dominant procedure.
G: as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process,…
-M: The only disablement of autopoiosis is when the most autopoietic system is deselected, which is SD2.
G: These are words of pretensios father of SD2. Do not worth much in political context. Everybody loves his own child the most, likes to think his own child is the best and there is no way that everybodies child is the best.
-M: Does this now mean that SD2 is not the best? Because emotional bias is common, its now the only option?
G: That is the reason promotors of the political concepts need to go one step further. Can you do it? Are you able to do
it?
-M: I am the one that wins all the debates. Can you see things my way?
G: I offered you possibility, so you can not say there was no other option. Now, it is only up to your own ability of evaluatig arguments
objectivly.
-M: Give me an arguement that I can’t overturn.
G:…but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.
-M: There is no such thing as pluralism – whatever selective system is used is singular, even if its selecting among multiple systems.
G: It is the power that matters, not votes. It is the power we need to generate, not votes. Origins of the power can be different. Somewehre it is reputation, somewhere else it is blind charisma, somewhere else its just arguments or dogmas. Many different origins.
-M: If PageRank doesn’t see this center of power(or potential power) what centrality algorithm does?
G: I have no problems with this reality. You?
-M: No, and I seem the most willing to take positions about reality than others here.
G: Is it fine with you?
-M: I am being asked to ignore the fact that other systems are being priviledged over SD2 from the beginning.I am also being dogmaticly asked to take a dogmatic stance against dogmatism.(Pain.)
G: I do not belive that you are not briliian enought to figure this paradox out, Mark.
-M: I don’t think that I need brilliance to figure out that this is just simply a contradiction.
M: The idea is to have a Wikipedia in which entries can be overriden by those that are higher ranked, and news articles can be given a PageRank and editorial commentary by those of high rank.
G: OK. I suppose this will be better than clasical system. Shall it be the best, I doubt. So, I find it be suitable for leading process in this very moment, till the next bird in the flock takes its lead.
-M: Fuck it. I am just going to learn Ruby. I will code it all if I have to.
G: Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.
-M: Then I will win as an individual and not a team.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:Measure I am talking about is reality. Something like deals between mafia, triads and yakusa. You think they need precise measures to function properly in cohabitation?Mark wrote:My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).G: I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.-M: ‘win’ – under what environment?(There will always be a dominant selective system, and it is usually 50%+1, which I want to avoid.)G: Actually not. There might be coexisting systems enabling better power equilibrium than one might enable. For an example. There might be autocrat John with followers who has 25% of the full societal power who needs to get into compromises with some parliament group who uses AD having 20% and your own SD2 party with 18% of the global societal power. You three having compromise on the level of concensus can decide anything. So, this is what SD2 as umbrelly can not enable and this is maybe exact scenario for the world REALITY every single system depends on.-M: You said ‘societal power’ – by what measure?You are assuming this measure to be decisive – this is the dominantsystem that I mentioned.
No, they do not. They have common sense and common knowledge about these issues. Of course, mafia has its voting procedures, for Yakusa and Triads I believe it is the same thing. Yet they do succeed in their work. And what is the measue they all acklaimed? Reality. And actually you do not need measure to work fine in this very moment.
One more thing. I do suppose in one moment I find be singularity in political context, opening era of internet democracy is the moment when people adopt this umbrela mechanism. Yet, that moment is far before us.
And we need to learn much more if we want to be a part who will realise that moment in some future. What I can notice is that there will be many procedures and cosntitutions of many organisations who will look for the political power. The best ones will win. And those who will belong to circle of the best are those who will acklaim global constitution for the world level.
All of this stuff is way before us and we have to do many many many stuff before we get to the position of choosing of one worl umbrella. All of this stuff discussing among 10 people on the level of lemming talk is just BSiting of those who do not have will to do stuffthat does matter.
And I do not want to belong to BSiters.
Are you?G: I want to enable reality goes transparent and informational free in amanner of freeing the whole World. I want to create such system thataccepts the fact he is dependent on reality, the one that is notcreated on glass letgs, not vice versa. If you do think that you can dowhatever you want no matter how reality actually looks like, you arefre to do such thing. My personal experience tells me that ignoring thereality is the best way of running towards the global failure. Thisstuf happened too many times not too start looking at it a little bitmore carefully.-M: OK, am I supposed to disagree with something here?
This reminds me on extreme right option in Croatia. They want to judge to the elements who terrorised them in ExYu. I tried to explain them that they have to realise that through global politcial consolidation that can first destabilise Croatian oligarchy on the common thing people do agree in this very time.G: Of course, if te world reality shows that SD2 becomes globaly adopted and dominant enough to be accepted dogmatically as long as every calculation is just aproximation of the true ratios,I wont go against it. Though, to put that attitude before realty, it does no make sense to me at all. I am not god and I do not need to play god to succeed in my mission. And you?-M: I will take a position on centrality algorithms because this isnessicary, and I won’t be nebulous while pretending that nebulousnesswill solve problems.
If they try to push their interest in the moment public do not trust those members, in the moment they have no established elements in Croatian society who would be acknowleged by wide political scene, they CAN NOT SUCCEED. But, being narrow minded as they obviously where, they did not listen. Two years later they are weaker than ever before. Instead of thinking and calculating among real options, insted of establishing their goals through empaty and deserved respect of others that can lead them to the moment they do desire, now they lost all credibility they ever had.
In the moment Croatian consolidation begins, being politicaly completely irelevant (and they where not in that position a couple years ago) they wont be in position to promote one single thing that might go against global perception that is far form just.
What I can notice is that you are doing the same stuff. You are forcing thing in the moment you can not gain desired legitimation. You are refusing possiblities that can help you pretty obviously in your mission. OK. Do it. Hit the wall again. I wont bother any more. It seems it is waste of time for me anyway.
Reality is that procedure.G: I do not believe in enabling only one procedure…-M: There will always be a dominant procedure – this is inescapeable – so what do you choose?G: False.-M: And you made this opinion with your dominant procedure.
G: as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process,…-M: The only disablement of autopoiosis is when the most autopoietic system is deselected, which is SD2.G: These are words of pretensios father of SD2. Do not worth much in political context. Everybody loves his own child the most, likes to think his own child is the best and there is no way that everybodies child is the best.-M: Does this now mean that SD2 is not the best?Because emotional bias is common, its now the only option?
I can say it seems to me it is the best what I can notice in this very moment. It is not any sort of absolute and putting it as an absolute would be pretty big mistake.
G: That is the reason promotors of the political concepts need to go one step further. Can you do it? Are you able to doit?-M: I am the one that wins all the debates. Can you see things my way?
I visited several religous groups with this sort of winners. They all win all the time.
Ask Yakusa PR.G: I offered you possibility, so you can not say there was no other option. Now, it is only up to your own ability of evaluatig argumentsobjectivly.-M: Give me an arguement that I can’t overturn.
G:…but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.-M: There is no such thing as pluralism – whatever selective system is used is singular, even if its selecting among multiple systems.G: It is the power that matters, not votes. It is the power we need to generate, not votes. Origins of the power can be different. Somewehre it is reputation, somewhere else it is blind charisma, somewhere else its just arguments or dogmas. Many different origins.-M: If PageRank doesn’t see this center of power(or potential power)what centrality algorithm does?
That is good, indeed.G: I have no problems with this reality. You?-M: No, and I seem the most willing to take positions about realitythan others here.
OK, than you deserve it.G: Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.-M: Then I will win as an individual and not a team.
ATB,
GAle
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:Mark wrote:My idea is to combine news(likehttp://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml),with information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) ,into debate-like format (http://www.phpbb.com/).
G: I do believe in autopoiesis. I do believe we have to enable this process go spontaniuosly. What does it mean? That every single person has the right in this very moment to choose what organisation and what procedure he will choose. The best procedure, the best organisaiton will win.
-M: ‘win’ – under what environment?(There will always be a dominant selective system, and it is usually 50%1, which I want to avoid.)
G: Actually not. There might be coexisting systems enabling better power equilibrium than one might enable. For an example. There might be autocrat John with followers who has 25% of the full societal power who needs to get into compromises with some parliament group who uses AD having 20% and your own SD2 party with 18% of the global societal power. You three having compromise on the level of concensus can decide anything. So, this is what SD2 as umbrelly can not enable and this is maybe exact scenario for the world REALITY every single system depends on.
-M: You said ‘societal power’ – by what measure? You are assuming this measure to be decisive – this is the dominantsystem that I mentioned.
G: Measure I am talking about is reality. Something like deals between mafia, triads and yakusa. You think they need precise measures to function properly in cohabitation?-M: They simply cut deals. When both parties agree, that is a deal. Agree agree= mutual agreement. 1+1=2
G: No, they do not. They have common sense and common knowledge about these issues. Of course, mafia has its voting procedures, for Yakusa and Triads I believe it is the same thing. Yet they do succeed in their work. And what is the measue they all acklaimed? Reality. And actually you do not need measure to work fine in this very moment.
-M: They are measuring each other’s agreements. So? Is this related?
G: One more thing. I do suppose in one moment I find be singularity in political context, opening era of internet democracy is the moment when people adopt this umbrela mechanism. Yet, that moment is far before us. And we need to learn much more if we want to be a part who will realise that moment in some future. What I can notice is that there will be many procedures and cosntitutions of many organisations who will look for the political power. The best ones will win. And those who will belong to circle of the best are those who will acklaim global constitution for the world level. All of this stuff is way before us and we have to do many many many
stuff before we get to the position of choosing of one worl umbrella.
-M: Whatever algorithm is chosen to organize under, is the chosen
umbrella.
To organize, an umbrella is needed. I propose SD2.(Others here were
trying to pull a 50%+1 as if everyone is supposed to agree that this
is the default centrality algorithm.)
G: All of this stuff discussing among 10 people on the level of lemming talk is just BSiting of those who do not have will to do stuffthat does matter. And I do not want to belong to BSiters.
-M: OK.
G: I want to enable reality goes transparent and informational free in amanner of freeing the whole World. I want to create such system thataccepts the fact he is dependent on reality, the one that is notcreated on glass letgs, not vice versa. If you do think that you can dowhatever you want no matter how reality actually looks like, you arefre to do such thing. My personal experience tells me that ignoring thereality is the best way of running towards the global failure. Thisstuf happened too many times not too start looking at it a little bitmore carefully.
-M: OK, am I supposed to disagree with something here?
G: Are you?-M: It looks good to me, unless you have a different idea of what reality is. I don’t consider reality to be a measurable static object, I view it as a trajectory, one that is knowable by knowing the principles involved. Me-Plato, you-Aristotle?
G: Of course, if te world reality shows that SD2 becomes globaly adopted and dominant enough to be accepted dogmatically as long as every calculation is just aproximation of the true ratios,I wont go against it. Though, to put that attitude before realty, it does no make sense to me at all. I am not god and I do not need to play god to succeed in my mission. And you?
-M: I will take a position on centrality algorithms because this is nessicary, and I won’t be nebulous while pretending that nebulousness will solve problems.
G: […]What I can notice is that you are doing the same stuff. You are forcing thing in the moment you can not gain desired legitimation. You are refusing possiblities that can help you pretty obviously in your mission. OK. Do it. Hit the wall again. I wont bother any more. It seems it is waste of time for me anyway.
-M: This isn’t a parallel. I am welcoming counter-positions, but they
rarely are coming.
I own the debate. By contrast, in your example, people were ignoring
counter-positions.
G: I do not believe in enabling only one procedure…
-M: There will always be a dominant procedure – this is inescapeable – so what do you choose?
G: False.
-M: And you made this opinion with your dominant procedure.
G: Reality is that procedure.-M: ‘Reality’ – knowable by principles and by debate about those principles, correct?
G: as long as this dogmatic attitude is putting ourseleves in the place of God, disabling autopoitic process,…
-M: The only disablement of autopoiosis is when the most autopoietic system is deselected, which is SD2.
G: These are words of pretensios father of SD2. Do not worth much in political context. Everybody loves his own child the most, likes to think his own child is the best and there is no way that everybodies child is the best.
-M: Does this now mean that SD2 is not the best?Because emotional bias is common, its now the only option?
G: I can say it seems to me it is the best what I can notice in this very moment. It is not any sort of absolute and putting it as an absolute would be pretty big mistake.-M: How would you KNOW this or not, if not by debate? Don’t I respond to ALL challenges to SD2?
G: That is the reason promotors of the political concepts need to go one step further. Can you do it? Are you able to do it?
-M: I am the one that wins all the debates. Can you see things my way?
G: I visited several religous groups with this sort of winners. They all win all the time.
-M: They usually win by being both logical and presumptuous. Am I being presumptuous? I welcome all challenges, don’t I? Have I done anything wrong? If I was completely right and completly fair, would you know?
G: I offered you possibility, so you can not say there was no other option. Now, it is only up to your own ability of evaluatig arguments objectivly.
-M: Give me an arguement that I can’t overturn.
G:…but whole pluralism in any single aspect of the system.
-M: There is no such thing as pluralism – whatever selective system is used is singular, even if its selecting among multiple systems.
G: It is the power that matters, not votes. It is the power we need to generate, not votes. Origins of the power can be different. Somewehre it is reputation, somewhere else it is blind charisma, somewhere else its just arguments or dogmas. Many different origins.
-M: If PageRank doesn’t see this center of power(or potential power) what centrality algorithm does?
G: Ask Yakusa PR.
-M: I googled ‘yakusa’, but I didn’t get anything that seems related. By context, I assume that Yakusa is Croatian organized crime, correct? If so, I consider the response to be a dodge because we are supposed to be designing measuring and/or predictive systems.
Well? What c-al is the most predictive of the other c-al outputs?
G: I have no problems with this reality. You?
-M: No, and I seem the most willing to take positions about reality than others here.
G: That is good, indeed.
-M: OK, and a position can be worked with better than a non-position, correct?
G: Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.
-M: Then I will win as an individual and not a team.
G: OK, than you deserve it. ATB, GAle
-M: I would say “Ha, ha, suckers, I told you so!” Wouldn’t that make you mad?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Mark. I am back :-)
Mark wrote:
With no centrality algorithm. Of course, centrality algorithm could help them pretty much, avoiding many masacrars and such, but they will use such thing in a moment both sides find a reason good enough to obey something that is not their direct common sense.G: Measure I am talking about is reality. Something like deals between mafia, triads and yakusa. You think they need precise measures to function properly in cohabitation?-M: They simply cut deals. When both parties agree, that is a deal.Agree+ agree= mutual agreement. 1+1=2
What I am trzing to point out is that centrality algorithm is not narrow part in this very moment. We can work on with full liberty of decision making process, something Emmanuel, Magnus, Markus and I do agree about.G: No, they do not. They have common sense and common knowledge about these issues. Of course, mafia has its voting procedures, for Yakusa and Triads I believe it is the same thing. Yet they do succeed in their work. And what is the measue they all acklaimed? Reality. And actually you do not need measure to work fine in this very moment.-M: They are measuring each other’s agreements. So? Is this related?
Maybe, but not in this very moment. In this very moment we can self organise with no need for any centrality algorithm at all. In the moment this group gets larger, to large to function properly with no such thing, I suppose there will be much more interest, much more will and much more readiness to adopt centrality algorithm.G: One more thing. I do suppose in one moment I find be singularity in political context, opening era of internet democracy is the moment when people adopt this umbrela mechanism. Yet, that moment is far before us. And we need to learn much more if we want to be a part who will realise that moment in some future. What I can notice is that there will be many procedures and cosntitutions of many organisations who will look for the political power. The best ones will win. And those who will belong to circle of the best are those who will acklaim global constitution for the world level. All of this stuff is way before us and we have to do many many manystuff before we get to the position of choosing of one worl umbrella.-M: Whatever algorithm is chosen to organize under, is the chosenumbrella.To organize, an umbrella is needed. I propose SD2.(Others here weretrying to pull a 50%+1 as if everyone is supposed to agree that thisis the default centrality algorithm.)
G: […]What I can notice is that you are doing the same stuff. You are forcing thing in the moment you can not gain desired legitimation. You are refusing possiblities that can help you pretty obviously in your mission. OK. Do it. Hit the wall again. I wont bother any more. It seems it is waste of time for me anyway.-M: This isn’t a parallel. I am welcoming counter-positions, but theyrarely are coming.I own the debate. By contrast, in your example, people were ignoringcounter-positions.
What I can notice, this is not a question of debating skills but exact need for such mechanism. In the moment we have need, we can realise its legitimation. If there is no exact need for it, I can not imagine this process be done successufully.You can try it of course. Though, people as I can notice prefer their common sense before some algorithm that might be not perfect, being birocratisation of their decision making freedom. People do not like to let their freedom with no exact reason and legitimation of such mechanism in any organisation, means loosing personal freedom for certain issues.
By testing it.G: I can say it seems to me it is the best what I can notice in this very moment. It is not any sort of absolute and putting it as an absolute would be pretty big mistake.-M: How would you KNOW this or not, if not by debate?
Don’t I respond to ALL challenges to SD2?What else(other than testing) can I do?
Enable ground for testing it.
I have no problems with your logic Mark. Actually, we share many ideas that are not too usuall nowdays.G: I visited several religous groups with this sort of winners. They all win all the time.-M: They usually win by being both logical and presumptuous.Am I being presumptuous? I welcome all challenges, don’t I?Have I done anything wrong? If I was completely right and completlyfair, would you know?
I do not understand this part. Can you explain it to me?G: That is good, indeed.-M: OK, and a position can be worked with better than a non-position,correct?
I would be glad :-)G: Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.-M: Then I will win as an individual and not a team.G: OK, than you deserve it. ATB, GAle-M: I would say “Ha, ha, suckers, I told you so!”Wouldn’t that make you mad?
ATB,
Gale
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
G: Hey Mark. I am back :-)
Mark wrote:
G: Measure I am talking about is reality. Something like deals between mafia, triads and yakusa. You think they need precise measures to function properly in cohabitation?
-M: They simply cut deals. When both parties agree, that is a deal. Agree+ agree= mutual agreement. 1+1=2
G: With no centrality algorithm.-M: Its (50%+1)-indegree. 50% of 2 = 1. And 1+1= 2, which is the decision threshhold. This is a centrality algorithm.
G: Of course, centrality algorithm could help them pretty much, avoiding many masacrars and such, but they will
use such thing in a moment both sides find a reason good enough to obey something that is not their direct common sense.
-M: It would help them if they realized that they ALREADY were using centrality algorithms – this may inspire them to find BETTER ones.
G: No, they do not. They have common sense and common knowledge about these issues. Of course, mafia has its voting procedures, for Yakusa and Triads I believe it is the same thing. Yet they do succeed in their work. And what is the measue they all acklaimed? Reality. And actually you do not need measure to work fine in this very moment.
-M: They are measuring each other’s agreements. So? Is this related?
G: What I am trzing to point out is that centrality algorithm is not narrow part in this very moment. We can work on with full liberty of
decision making process, something Emmanuel, Magnus, Markus and I do agree about.
-M: There is no liberty because one c-al is always dominant – the one that is being used. “But we can choose another!” Then you are using the one that you are using to choose another. The present c-al will follow you like your shadow – you will always use the present c-al.
G: One more thing. I do suppose in one moment I find be singularity in political context, opening era of internet democracy is the moment when people adopt this umbrela mechanism. Yet, that moment is far before us. And we need to learn much more if we want to be a part who will realise that moment in some future. What I can notice is that there will be many procedures and cosntitutions of many organisations who will look for the political power. The best ones will win. And those who will belong to circle of the best are those who will acklaim global constitution for the world level. All of this stuff is way before us and we have to do many many manystuff before we get to the position of choosing of one worl umbrella.
-M: Whatever algorithm is chosen to organize under, is the chosen umbrella. To organize, an umbrella is needed. I propose SD2.(Others here were trying to pull a 50%+1 as if everyone is supposed to agree that this is the default centrality algorithm.)
G: Maybe, but not in this very moment. In this very moment we can self organise with no need for any centrality algorithm at all.-M: Your c-al is already with you.
G: In the moment this group gets larger, to large to function properly with no such thing,…
-M: Impossible.
G: I suppose there will be much more interest, much more will and much more readiness to adopt centrality algorithm.
-M: I propose that we atleast start describing with centrality algorithms.(This is different than making decisions.)
A poll: “Give the names of 2-5 people that you would like to work
with.”
This would yield data, which could be analyzed with a variety od
algorithms.
G: […]What I can notice is that you are doing the same stuff. You are forcing thing in the moment you can not gain desired legitimation. You are refusing possiblities that can help you pretty obviously in your mission. OK. Do it. Hit the wall again. I wont bother any more. It seems it is waste of time for me anyway.
-M: This isn’t a parallel. I am welcoming counter-positions, but they rarely are coming. I own the debate. By contrast, in your example, people were ignoring counter-positions.
G: What I can notice, this is not a question of debating skills but exact
need for such mechanism. In the moment we have need, we can realise its
legitimation. If there is no exact need for it, I can not imagine this process be done successufully.
-M: Need for correct political decision making? Isn’t that a no-brainer?
G: You can try it of course. Though, people as I can notice prefer their common sense before some algorithm that
might be not perfect, being birocratisation of their decision making freedom.
-M: Their decision making already is bureaucritized. I don’t propose changing that nor does anyone else.
G: People do not like to let their freedom with no exact reason and legitimation of such mechanism in any organisation, means loosing personal freedom for certain issues.
-M: OK. That how it is already. People seem to not know how things
work.
I have little interest in education the lemmings. Marketing the truth
to them is futile.
G: I can say it seems to me it is the best what I can notice in this very moment. It is not any sort of absolute and putting it as an absolute would be pretty big mistake.
-M: How would you KNOW this or not, if not by debate?
G: By testing it.
-M: OK, I meant in advance of testing.
M: Don’t I respond to ALL challenges to SD2? What else(other than testing) can I do?
G: Enable ground for testing it.
-M: OK. I just proposed a version of SD2 with default inputs. This will make testin easier.
G: I visited several religous groups with this sort of winners. They all win all the time.
-M: They usually win by being both logical and presumptuous.Am I being presumptuous? I welcome all challenges, don’t I?Have I done anything wrong? If I was completely right and completlyfair, would you know?
G:I have no problems with your logic Mark. Actually, we share many ideas that are not too usuall nowdays.
-M:(Careful, Gale – don’t be too nice to me or others here won’t like it. “Mark is too controversial, he seems to make sense, but he gives us a bad FEELING.”)
G: That is good, indeed.
-M: OK, and a position can be worked with better than a non-position, correct?
G: I do not understand this part. Can you explain it to me?
-M: Many won’t offer their opinions, even when they have them. By not offering opinions, those opinions are less vulnerable to attack. I suspect that many here are playing it safe by not attacking many of my positions because they don’t want to be proven wrong. This is an entrenchment. People need to make themselves as vulnerable as possible.
G: Do it. It is up to you to prove your expectations. Not to anybody else.
-M: Then I will win as an individual and not a team.
G: OK, than you deserve it. ATB, GAle
-M: I would say “Ha, ha, suckers, I told you so!”Wouldn’t that make you mad?
G: I would be glad :-)
I have started learning Ruby and I like it so far.
Ruby on Rails seems promising, and I am imagining how the user accounts
would work, and how people would select their representitives. Most of
the code is already there – I just need to figure out how to insert
SD2.
Does Python translate easily into Ruby? Maybe Marcus’s code could be
modifid for my tasks.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
I prefer the old rule of free speech.
But in combination with a ranking system making it possible to filter
out arbiters if I like.
When it comes to wiki, I think we will not have too much problem since
all of us can work on different document wihout interfering with each
other unless we disagree.
When this is the case we can have a vote and accept to follow the
outcome. And as dicussed before nothing stops that a certain idea is
not trashed but instead kept as an option or possibility for later use.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
mG: I prefer the old rule of free speech.
-M: Me too. Is this related?
mG: But in combination with a ranking system making it possible to filter out arbiters if I like.
-M: No one gets filtered, its just that the high ranked have editorial status that others don’t have(and shouldn’t have).
mG: When it comes to wiki, I think we will not have too much problem since all of us can work on different document wihout interfering with each other unless we disagree. When this is the case we can have a vote and accept to follow the outcome.
-M: The problem is, if the votes are merely counted, its the popular opinion that will win (and popular opinion has been largley created by the mind-controllers of the British Empire (as evidenced by the numerous contradictions that many have tried to proliferate here, and that I am continuing to fight.))
mG: And as dicussed before nothing stops that a certain idea is not trashed but instead kept as an option or possibility for later use.
-M: I have no plans to trash any ideas, but they will be prioritized.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: No one gets filtered, its just that the high ranked have editorial
status that others don’t have(and shouldn’t have).
-Well, and editorial status is not to stop some writings and promote
others?
No thankyou.
Unless there is a misbehaviour stated in the moderating rules that are
known, and agreed upon, to everyone, there shall be free speech.
But this I would call, moderators.
These can be voted upon derictly or by ranking principles as far as I
see it.
-M: The problem is, if the votes are merely counted, its the popular
opinion that will win (and popular opinion has been largley created by the mind-controllers of the British Empire (as evidenced by the numerous contradictions that many have tried to proliferate here, and that I am continuing to fight.))
-The problem with mind control will cease with true democracy and free
speech.
This was not present in the BE as you know.
If you were to stop mind control by speech control you have missed the
whole thing.
-M: I have no plans to trash any ideas, but they will be prioritized.-By whom?
The only acceptable answer should be: the voters, to whom the country belongs as discussed earlier.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: No one gets filtered, its just that the high ranked have editorial status that others don’t have(and shouldn’t have).
mG: Well, and editorial status is not to stop some writings and promote others?
-M: No, everyone’s writings would be in their public portfolio and accessable by others, but their would be quality filetring which would promote the better writings.
-M: The problem is, if the votes are merely counted, its the popular opinion that will win (and popular opinion has been largley created by the mind-controllers of the British Empire (as evidenced by the numerous contradictions that many have tried to proliferate here, and
that I am continuing to fight.))
mG: The problem with mind control will cease with true democracy and free speech.
-M: BS! More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of
mind-control.
And the BE-mindcontrollers exploit this by amplifying the favorable
thesis/antithesis dichotomies, creating the resultant synthesis, all
while pretending that the synthesis is a natural evolutionary product
and not contrived.
The power of this is its subtlety and acceptance by the general
public.(Humans are largely motivated by socialization factors.)
mG: This was not present in the BE as you know. If you were to stop mind control by speech control you have missed the
whole thing.
-M: Mind control is ALWAYS present (I am doing it now – the difference
is, my techniques are better than the enemy’s.)
Miss this point, and you have missed the whole thing
-M: I have no plans to trash any ideas, but they will be prioritized.
-mG: By whom? The only acceptable answer should be: the voters, to whom
the country
belongs as discussed earlier.
-M: Yes, and SD2 is controlled by the voters.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: No, everyone’s writings would be in their public portfolio and
accessable by others, but their would be quality filetring which would promote the better writings.
-OK, good.
-M: BS! More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of
mind-control.
And the BE-mindcontrollers exploit this by amplifying the favorable
thesis/antithesis dichotomies, creating the resultant synthesis, all
while pretending that the synthesis is a natural evolutionary product
and not contrived.
The power of this is its subtlety and acceptance by the general
public.(Humans are largely motivated by socialization factors.)
-Proof please.
M: Mind control is ALWAYS present (I am doing it now – the difference
is, my techniques are better than the enemy’s.)
-I’m shaking..
-mG: By whom? The only acceptable answer should be: the voters, to whom
the country belongs as discussed earlier.
-M: Yes, and SD2 is controlled by the voters.
-But if there is the wrong rep…ideas could be trashed. Not good.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: No, everyone’s writings would be in their public portfolio and accessable by others, but their would be quality filetring which would
promote the better writings.
mG-OK, good.
-M: BS! More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of mind-control. And the BE-mindcontrollers exploit this by amplifying the favorable thesis/antithesis dichotomies, creating the resultant synthesis, all while pretending that the synthesis is a natural evolutionary product and not contrived. The power of this is its subtlety and acceptance by the general
public.(Humans are largely motivated by socialization factors.)
mG: Proof please.
-M: http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406Control.htm http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2002/aff_backgrnd.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2915aff_docum.html
M: Mind control is ALWAYS present (I am doing it now – the difference is, my techniques are better than the enemy’s.)
mG-I’m shaking..
-M: The most common mind control technique is: TRUTH. The second most common mind control technique: convenient omission of truth. (This isn’t lieing, its dodging.)
The ENEMY and your DODGE-MONKEY ass both use the second technique way too much.
-mG: By whom? The only acceptable answer should be: the voters, to whom the country
belongs as discussed earlier.
-M: Yes, and SD2 is controlled by the voters.
mG:-But if there is the wrong rep…ideas could be trashed. Not good
-M: With DD, the majority could be wrong.
Again, you aren’t making a comparison.
This is like saying “we shouldn’t fly in planes because they crash.”
And cars don’t crash?
“We shouldn’t eat food because it can make us fat.”
“We shouldn’t breathe, because we could hyperventilate.”
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
mG-OK, good.-M: BS! More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of mind-control. And the BE-mindcontrollers exploit this by amplifying the favorable thesis/antithesis dichotomies, creating the resultant synthesis, all while pretending that the synthesis is a natural evolutionary product and not contrived. The power of this is its subtlety and acceptance by the general
public.(Humans are largely motivated by socialization factors.)
mG: Proof please.
-M: http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406Control.htm http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2002/aff_backgrnd.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2915aff_docum.html
M: Mind control is ALWAYS present (I am doing it now – the difference…
-Interesting, you give me links proofing what I have said about
elitism…
I found this..:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406Control.htm “THE BITTER TRUTH
The most significant thing about our life is that we are victims of elite mind control. We have been trained to be apathetic, trivia-minded and self absorbed. Apart from the political shocks, we are hardly aware of the vicious attack on our natural heterosexuality by a psy-op known as “feminism” masquerading as womens rights.
We get our values, identity, meaning and love from our family roles. Women were brainwashed to abandon the female role and compete for the male role. A woman who dedicated herself to husband, home and children was stigmatized. This is part of the long-term elite program to eliminate the institutions of marriage and family.
According to this web site, “Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the USA, that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock, or one of its subsidiaries.” Read how Tavistock directs hundreds of elite think tanks and corporations in the United States. The degree of elite coordination is breath taking. "
-TOP will actually break these structures and democracy can start to
work again.
Since you don’t point out more specific where you find proof for this
statement:
“More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of
mind-control.”
,I’ll rest my case.
-M: With DD, the majority could be wrong.
Again, you aren’t making a comparison.
-Yes, I am.
With AD, nothing will be trashed unless not written according agreed
simple rules.
When I lsiten to you, iget the impression that you wan’t to leave this
judgment to the elevated elite.
Which is worse when I compare.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
mG-OK, good.-M: BS! More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of mind-control. And the BE-mindcontrollers exploit this by amplifying the favorable thesis/antithesis dichotomies, creating the resultant synthesis, all while pretending that the synthesis is a natural evolutionary product and not contrived. The power of this is its subtlety and acceptance by the general public.(Humans are largely motivated by socialization factors.)
mG: Proof please.-M: http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtmlhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406Control.htm http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2002/aff_backgrnd.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2915aff_docum.html
M: Mind control is ALWAYS present (I am doing it now – the difference…
mG: Interesting, you give me links proofing what I have said about elitism…-M: I don’t agree with everything on these links, I don’t like the their usage of the word ‘elite/elitism’.
mG: I found this..:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406Control.htm “THE BITTER TRUTH The most significant thing about our life is that we are victims of elite mind control…”
-M: ‘elite mind control’ – the problem is that the mind control is pathological-elite, which isn’t elite enough. Real elite is like Dali Lama, Dr.King and FDR.
mG: "We have been trained to be apathetic, trivia-minded and self absorbed. Apart from the political shocks, we are hardly aware
of the vicious attack on our natural heterosexuality by a psy-op known
as “feminism” masquerading as womens rights. We get our values,
identity, meaning and love from our family roles. Women were
brainwashed to abandon the female role and compete for the
male role. A woman who dedicated herself to husband, home and children
was stigmatized. This is part of the long-term elite program to
eliminate the institutions of marriage and family." According to this
web site, “Tavistock Institute has developed such
power in the USA, that no one achieves prominence in any field unless
he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock, or one of its
subsidiaries.” Read how Tavistock directs hundreds of elite think tanks
and corporations in the United States. The degree of elite coordination
is breath taking. " -TOP will actually break these structures and
democracy can start to work again.
Since you don’t point out more specific where you find proof for this
statement:
“More diversity of opinion simply means more diversity of
mind-control.”
I’ll rest my case.
-M: During the Korean War, during brainwahing experiments, most of brainwashing on American POWs was done by the POWs themselves on each other. The work that the N.Korean experimenters did was in showing propaganda(which was mostly truth-based), and separating out who was most influencable by it. Those most influenced were socialized with those who were most influencable. The Empire knows about this, and tries to make media and academic institutions fit this model as much as possible.
Yes, people, getting brainwashed can get you PUSSY, and the Empire has created this situation.
-M: With DD, the majority could be wrong. Again, you aren’t making a comparison.
mG: Yes, I am. With AD, nothing will be trashed unless not written according agreed simple rules. When I lsiten to you, iget the impression that you wan’t to leave this judgment to the elevated elite. Which is worse when I compare.
-M: Yes, I want an elevated elite, one that can challenge the
imperial-elite.
What is so hard to understand about this?
I want the non-brainwashed to be rewarded, not the brainwashed.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
-M: Democracy means ‘rule by the people’You now must think that rep-democracies aren’t democracies.
No.
That would only be true in representative democracy models
which did not have mechanisms built-in
which facilitate the abilities of voters to exercise
“Immediate Recall” over their elected officers
or to “Veto” proposed policies.
In other words:
With “Immediate Recall” & “Veto” powers in the hands of the common people
those common people are
indirectly but still effectively empowered to rule at all times.
This puts you in left-field.
I think not, young sir.
I like to paint with a broad-brush;C: I only used the phrase to differentiate this concept from the artificial look-alike puppet-democracies which the neocon/imperialists own & manipulate.-M: Lets say ‘currupted democracy’ vs. ‘uncorrupted democracy’.
Perhaps. But i believe it has 2 stages. See below.-M: This is an example of a first-order algorithm.C: Ummm. Maybe. Your term “Interval” seems displaced. But it is a direct factor in the total ofthe power of the final vote counted, so i suppose we may be on the samepage.-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others.You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”. If that is your assumption, it is in error.Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of 100 possible maximum weighted approval.-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves.If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
I do not consider normal 1-based intervals of counting to be “arbitrary”.-M: This is the same form of counting. You have only arbitrarilypredetermined ‘counting’ to be whole numbers in intervals of one.C: Well, yea. I did not realize that was how you were “counting”. This certainly is not a direct/simplified form of “counting”.C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.So your critique that the CLD2 process i(s) only “counting” is in error,sir.-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, and ends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
Further; i do not believe you have at all proven that CLD2 uses a direct/simplified “first-order” form of counting.
I consider the division & averaging process of the vote totals to be a secondary algorithmic process, & there-fore it is no longer of the “first order”.
Also:
Even if it were provable that CLD2 was “first order”;
this still does not prove your implied main point that
the CLD2 process is ‘less than optimal’ for achieving
our stated goals of empowering the common people of this planet.
I have asked before that you give tangible/real evidence
of this ultimate issue in controversy, young sir.
You continue to fail to address that ultimate issue.
That wording seems to me to be lazy & in violation of your own standard of “Rigor”, sir. There-in, you are only effectively saying: “it is bad, because, it is bad”.C: But now that we finally seem to be comprehending each other’s terminologies clearly;can you explain why this simple CLD2 weighted-voting model should berejected by reasonable people as a valuable tool in promoting"responsible self-government"?-M: Because it is about the same algorithm as before, the lemming algorithm.
That is not “Rigorous” debate.
Thats is lemming debate, or possibly even
intellectual-coward & un-natural-aristocrat debate.
Please, provide some substantive reasoning for your critique of CLD2;
or else honorably admit that
your previous critique of CLD2 was in error; young sir.
To which i counter, that:C: But we still have remaining points of contention, good sir. And im sure you comprehend that there are some issues which i simply can not compromise on.In particular, please help me achieve concensus with you concerning how most honorably to respond to the presence of my CLD2 voting program.-M: OK.
M: The problem with CLC2 is the fact thatit is based on the in-degree algorithm, which determines the center of a social network with the depth of only one order.
This process is even further enhanced when
the status of “Qualified Electors” is sorted-out
among the larger general population,
at each & every one of the smaller “Precinct” jurisdictions,
as is required under already pre-existing
anglo/american “Constitutional-Law” (aka: common-Law).
There are many tools which are available to us, which are already in place,
& which can tremendously help this cause,
if we will but breath life back into them.
They are only presently dis-used, because of
socially-engineered wars, depressions, & other socially-traumatic reasons.
Further, this simplified counting algorithm
actually empowers common people more than SD2,
because they can directly comprehend how it works,
they can calculate for themselves that its results are true,
& they can there-by verify that no parasite-elitist classes
are messing with their voting process through
diebold style back-doors built into the program.
You again presume incorrectly, young sir.C: I really need a more detailed explanation here, sir.-M: It is majoritarian,
CLD2 specifically Rejects “Majoritarianism”.
It accomplishes this task through its
provisions for “Immediate Recall” & “Veto” powers
being firmly lodged in every qualified-elector/voter.
I have referred to this before.
I do not comprehend why you continue to fail to grasp this concept.
and most people are lemmings
ummmm, perhaps.
- this yields lemmingism.
Well, ignoring your un-substantiated indictment of CLD2;
your under-lying concern does accurately indict
poor policies for leadership selection & policy adoption.
There are at least a few non-lemmings in every community, especially proper anglo/american Constitutional “Precincts”, of approximately 100 households.-M: Its still based on counting, so the lemmings are simply going to chose lesser lemmings.M: This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.C: Those are two different critiques; the first of which seems to me to be the only critique of any possible substance. Let me elaborate on how i see the program optimally being used. […]Now can you tell me Why this process should be considered as not being 100 % efficient for this small community of people in selecting their own township leader?
If each voter in each such community has a “Veto” power
over leadership-selection & policy-adoption,
then the non-lemmings can be presumed to
exercise their veto powers
in manners which will guarantee only the selection of
responsible natural-aristocrat/natural-elite leaders.
I do not see why this concept
is so difficult for you to grasp, Mark.
Your page-rank/SD2 system seems to me to be chaotic & arbitrary. Your page-rank/SD2 voting model does not seem to reference any out-side models for imposing any “Order”C: It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of the desired needs of the common people there-in. I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people using this voting program in this way, as you above words seem to imply, sir. Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.-M: Because the representation is limited to one level arbitrarily. By contrast PageRank is an adaptive multi-order algorithm that cangenerate multi-levels of hierarchy.
Under CLD2, no more than 10 levels of hierarchy are needed for the efficient governing of the entire planet.
CLD2 accomplishes this necessary task by
seeking to sub-divide all larger populations into
hierarchically-organized communities of 10’s or 12’s.
Further, you again error when you say that
CLD2 is “limited to one level” of representation.
I have referred on multiple occasions to
the multi-level hierarchy we seek for world governing,
as explained here:
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/World12Divisions.html
Again; i do not comprehend why you continue
to fail to gasp these fundamental CLD2 concepts, sir.
You cut out my example CLD2 Township votes from this text; so that the full context of this discussion is not available. Further, you did not even follow the norm of indicating a text cut by inserting any form of aC: And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance, then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?-M: I am not making efficency an issue, just quality.
Please refrain from future deletions of similarly ‘still-relevant text’.
And when it is conscionable to delete obsolete text,
please indicate your deletions by way of a
To your point:
if “quality” is lost, then “efficiency” is lost.
You are making a ‘distinction with-out a difference’, sir;
& all seemingly for no other purpose than
to evade the central issues in controversy,
which you further obscured by way of
your obscured and un-marked deletions of still relevant text.
Please; quit evading the central points in controversy, young sir.
-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in group situations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually like to see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
Agreed.
Thank you.C: Agreed. 100 %. But it is like surgery. The sticks are like scalpels. One needs to be “surgically-precise” in his application. Misapplication is serious bad-karma.-M: Agreed on all points. And you are welcome to point out misapplication.
I am aware of this.C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools ofthe un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds of elitists (because they both work sustainably), while deception is the trademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the short term gains that the parasite wants.C: Again; 100 % agreement.-M: OK. (You did concede to one of my points. (I am not used to peopleconceding this easily.) If you are aware of this, you get good sportpoints.)
Then you will appreciate my ‘ratcheting-up’will enable the collective-spirit of the movement to gain momentum,…-M: I am creating a new order where token concessions and appeasementto lemmingism will no longer be needed.C: There is a time and place for such fervent devotion to truth & justice. Granting a proud but simple country farmer his pride by making a token-concession to his uneducated but common use of words,C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic; but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristicof a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important"Trust" in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argumentconcerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with theopposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhapspoorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. Thenatural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; toaccommodate his followers, imho.-M: I make no compromises.
My father (bless his soul)
used to say that there are many people who:
“can dish it out, but can’t take it”.
You can take every bit of well-reasoned constructive-criticism in the same intensity with which you frequently “dish it out”, Correct?
You are this intense in your peer-criticism,
for the singular purpose of setting a higher example
of a disciplined rigorous model of debate & democracy
which can produce real/workable empowerment the common people;
Correct?
You are willing to test all of your propositions
in such well-reasoned and rigorous debate, correct?
I am inclined to believe you, & i am glad you enjoy my choice of words.C:…and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english. You are an adult, Mark. You do what you believe is best.But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader, if youjust were just not quite such a hard-ass.-M: LOL! Being a hard-ass is my online persona. It is fun.In meat-space, I am very lovable. :-)
But again, there are some serious issues on the table here, and these require the attention of our more hard=assed personas.
Well; i am glad that you are exempting some from such intense criticism. I would just respectfully suggest that you broaden that circle so that you are treating every-one equally.-M: I am being a hard-ass mainly toward those who I am fairly certainwon’t be doing programming for SD2.C: There are times and places to be hard-asses. I can fill that role with the best; as you will see if you hang with me long enough. But the men who are your foot soldiers, who are marching into battle with you/us; are not the ones who you need to be focusing your hard-ass energy against.C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly,their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
I believe that preferentialism in prosecuting stupidity, is not a characteristic of a natural aristocrat/elitist leader; young sir.
I gave partial review to the lengthy comments in the amazon link above. I would probably share your criticism ofC: That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy; & only is to be used amongst your troopswhen they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid as to directly aid thatenemy.-M: By advocating DD, they are directly aiding the enemy.I am trying to undo the enemy propaganda that has led to this.A good example is the book: “The Authoritarian Personality”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393311120/This book tries to make an authoritative case against authority. Thisbook was popular with the 60’s counterculture movement, and has helpedto lead to degeneracy, such as the elite anti-elitism displayed byDDers.
Thank you.C: We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.-M: Rock on.
We are “Delayed” by our present Waiting for SD2.C: And there are plenty of opportunities to get verbally-abusive on some of the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum. >But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them; and they are blocking concensus well after they have clearly been adequately indulged in their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.-M: With SD2, progress would not be delayed.
I am glad you “like my style” Mark.C: Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you. Now i can get in your face, respectfully; and tell you that i need better explanations;& i can realistically can expect that you are going to make a seriousattempt at explaining things to me.But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark; & i would not havethis new confidenceif i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work in these attempts atblasting through that thick skin of yours in my attempts at touchingyour soul.-M: Kinda trippy, but I like your style.
I like to bear my soul, so that fellow spiritual warriors
will know exactly where i am coming from
before i begin ratcheting-up the intensity of my debate with them.
That way, if & when consensus cannot be reached;
then one of the two must logically be considered as
not truly seeking the best interests of the common people (sin),
& my karma is much more clean.
More to our point:
You are speaking in the tones of
a natural-aristocrat/elitist leader, Mark.
I speak in those tones also.
We will either learn to speak with as single harmonious voice,
or one of us will abdicate his eligibility for
the position of ‘immediate-recall based’ democratic-monarch.
I do not intend to abdicate my eligibility for that position, young sir. I will voluntarily surrender it to one who, through open honest debate; proves him-self more qualified than me.
But i am not going to lemming-out that much-precious position for anyone.
Learn these algorithms: closeness, betweeness, and degree. Also learnwhat a markov-chain is.Prepare to tell me the difference between a 2nd and 3rd order Markovalgorithm.Use Google like I did to learn all of this.
Through google, on “Markov Chain”, i found in Wikipedia: “The PageRank of a webpage as used by Google is defined by a Markov chain.”
From your prodding, & without becoming a skilled mathematician;
i believe i have come to grasp the basics of how “Page Rank” works.
But that cursory review of your advice being completed;
i need to again repeat my underlying concern,
that you continue to seem to fail to grasp, Mark; which is:
I see no reason for me to study
all of these complex mathematical formulations
when you still have not shown me Why
my already presently functioning & simplified CLD2 voting program
is not fully capable of addressing all of mankind’s needs.
You continue telling me of the alleged glories
of this complex-mathematical algorithm-based system of voting,
(of which there is presently no working model in our real world
& seemingly no working model seems be expected in the near future);
& yet for all of the alleged genius those supporting your complex system,
i find it very disturbing that not a one of you
seems capable of explaining to me in simple terms
why my very simplified CLD2 voting program model
is allegedly inadequate for serving all needs of
the common people of this planet.
I find this very disturbing, Mark.
Again, please explain to me what the problems with CLD2 are; & please use more advanced detailed arguments than such as “because it produces majoritarianism ", or “it results in lemmingism”.
-M: Lord Northampton, who is second highest in British Freemasonry, isa Buddhist. Also Masonry is institutionally close to Golden Dawn, whichuses Yogic models.Maybe they don’t think they are evil. Maybe they justify their ways tothemselves, and think that they are protecting the lemmings fromthemselves. Maybe they think that they have good karma.
Those excuses are available to commoners,
not to self-declared aristocrats.
Try to keep that welcome affirmation fresh in your mind as our differing back-ground perspectives here-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?:We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.C: “Patience”, young sir. This is the dawn of the age of aquarius. We need to keep our karma clean at every juncture.-M: LOL!
C: We observe the tools around us which the universe had s provided us with to accomplish our needed work in this time & place.We take what tools are available to us, we mold & forge & fashion them into implements for with which to wage this spiritual battle, & with crystal clear karma we go fucking ballistic at the enemies of all honest people on this planet.-M: I like you.
I have problems with much of Ike’s work also;C: Well, i do think there are other aspects involved. But basically, “Yes”; especially on the families organizing point. And on that ‘family organizing imperialism’ point; here is a mind-blower for you, if you have not already seen it:http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_satanic_bloodlines.htmhttp://www.whale.to/b/sp/bloodlines.html"Let Justice be done, tho the heavens them-selves may fall". Chuck …-M: They don’t have to be satanic or shape-shifting-reptilians(Icke),simply being humans with entrenched power is trouble enough.
But for our organizing purposes, & while at these beginning stages; it is fully adequate to address these very serious concerns from your more simplified and apparently secular-humanist perspective.
Yes, we seem in agreement:
the “entrenched power” must be decentralized & distributed
amongst the common people, Correct?
shalom,
cbs …
shantiMark, 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
C: Further; i do not believe you have at all proven that CLD2 uses
a direct/simplified “first-order” form of counting. I consider the division & averaging process of the vote totals to be a secondary algorithmic process, & there-fore it is no longer of the “first order”.
-M: Thats just a manipulation of the first order data – boring. There are no Markov chains here.
[…]
M: The problem with CLC2 is the fact thatit is based on the in-degree algorithm,which determines the center of a social network with the depth of only one order.
C: To which i counter, that: There is no real problem with such shallow/simplified calculating algorithms determining the center of the social network, if the population of the society/community is sub-divided along pre-determined and balanced lines, […] Further, this simplified counting algorithm actually empowers common people more than SD2, because they can directly comprehend how it works, they can calculate for themselves that its results are true,…-M: SD2/PageRank is hard to calculate, but easy to verify - rank=(avg.invote strength)X# of votes.
C:…& they can there-by verify that no parasite-elitist classes are messing with their voting process through diebold style back-doors built into the program.
-M: No, fake votes influence SD2 less than counting.
[…]
C: It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of the desired needs of the common people there-in. I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people using this voting program in this way, as you above words seem to imply, sir. Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.
-M: Because the representation is limited to one level arbitrarily.By contrast PageRank is an adaptive multi-order algorithm that cangenerate multi-levels of hierarchy.
C: Your page-rank/SD2 system seems to me to be chaotic & arbitrary.-M: No its very orderly and non-arbitrary.
C: Your page-rank/SD2 voting model does not seem to reference any out-side models for imposing any “Order” on our other-wise chaotic planet.
-M: Google organizes the web quite well.
C:[…]Further, you again error when you say that CLD2 is “limited to one level” of representation.
I have referred on multiple occasions to the multi-level hierarchy we seek for world governing[…],
-M: You are using a single hierarchy algorithm to generate multiple layered hierarchy. Boring.
C: And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance,then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?
-M: I am not making efficency an issue, just quality.
[…]
C: Please; quit evading the central points in controversy, young sir.-M: The central issue is single order algorithms vs multi-order algorithms.
-M: I am creating a new order where token concessions and appeasementto lemmingism will no longer be needed.
C: Then you will appreciate my ‘ratcheting-up’ the intensity of my debate here with you,
& you will take it in the spirit of good-healthy ‘rigor’ in which it is intended, Correct?
-M: If you can. You will have to have a crash course in SNA and Markov algorithms
C: My father (bless his soul) used to say that there are many people who:
“can dish it out, but can’t take it”. You can take every bit of
well-reasoned constructive-criticism
in the same intensity with which you frequently “dish it out”, Correct?
-M: Give it a try.
C: You are this intense in your peer-criticism, for the singular purpose of setting a higher example
of a disciplined rigorous model of debate & democracy which can produce real/workable empowerment the common people; Correct?
-M: Absolutely.
C: You are willing to test all of your propositions in such well-reasoned and rigorous debate, correct?
-M: As long as I don’t have to waste time being the person’s educator.
C:…and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english. You are an adult, Mark. You do what you believe is best. But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader, if you just were just not quite such a hard-ass.
M: LOL! Being a hard-ass is my online persona. It is fun.In meat-space, I am very lovable. :)
C: I am inclined to believe you, & i am glad you enjoy my choice of words. But again, there are some serious issues on the table here, and these require the attention of our more hard=assed personas.
-M: OK.
C: There are times and places to be hard-asses.I can fill that role with the best; as you will see if you hang with me long enough.But the men who are your foot soldiers, who are marching into battle with you/us;are not the ones who you need to be focusing your hard-ass energy against.C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly,their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
-M: I am being a hard-ass mainly toward those who I am fairly certainwon’t be doing programming for SD2.
C: Well; i am glad that you are exempting some from such intense criticism.I would just respectfully suggest that you broaden that circle so that you are treating every-one equally. I believe that preferentialism in prosecuting stupidity, is not a characteristic of a natural aristocrat/elitist leader; young sir.
-M: I think that I got Emmanuel to back off. This is fine.
C: That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy; & only is to be used amongst your troopswhen they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid as to directly aid thatenemy.
-M: By advocating DD, they are directly aiding the enemy.I am trying to undo the enemy propaganda that has led to this.A good example is the book: “The Authoritarian Personality”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393311120/This book tries to make an authoritative case against authority. Thisbook was popular with the 60’s counterculture movement, and has helpedto lead to degeneracy, such as the elite anti-elitism displayed byDDers.
C: I gave partial review to the lengthy comments in the amazon link above. I would probably share your criticism of what appears to be over-liberalized mush-brain leftist philosophy.
-M: I think that the poltical spectrum is designed to polarize people into emotional bias. This makes them easier to control.
C: We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.
-M: Rock on.
Thank you.
C: And there are plenty of opportunities to get verbally-abusive on some of the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum. >But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them; and they are blocking concensus well after they have clearly been adequately indulgedin their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.
-M: With SD2, progress would not be delayed.
C: We are “Delayed” by our present Waiting for SD2. […]
-M: Then organize people and have them vote for each other. I will process the data.
C: Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you. Now i can get in your face, respectfully; and tell you that i need better explanations;& i can realistically can expect that you are going to make a seriousattempt at explaining things to me. But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark; & i would not have this new confidence if i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work in these attempts atblasting through that thick skin of yours in my attempts at touching your soul.
-M: Kinda trippy, but I like your style.
C: I am glad you “like my style” Mark.I am fully aware that many people would consider my choice of words to be discomfortingly inter-personal to the point of perhaps actually being offensive.
-M: Thank you.
C: I speak in those tones also.
-M: I think so.
We will either learn to speak with as single harmonious voice,
or one of us will abdicate his eligibility for
the position of ‘immediate-recall based’ democratic-monarch.
I do not intend to abdicate my eligibility for that position, young
sir.
I will voluntarily surrender it to one who, through open honest debate;
proves him-self more qualified than me.
-M: This will require more than debate, it may require you to prove yourself wrong with research.
C: But i am not going to lemming-out that much-precious position for anyone.
-M: OK.
Learn these algorithms: closeness, betweeness, and degree. Also learnwhat a markov-chain is. Prepare to tell me the difference between a 2nd and 3rd order Markovalgorithm. Use Google like I did to learn all of this.
C: Through google, on “Markov Chain”, i found in Wikipedia:
“The PageRank of a webpage as used by Google is defined by a Markov chain.” From your prodding, & without becoming a skilled mathematician;
i believe i have come to grasp the basics of how “Page Rank” works.
-M: Your comments to me will be the test.
C: I see no reason for me to study
all of these complex mathematical formulations […]You continue
telling me of the alleged glories
of this complex-mathematical algorithm-based system of voting,
(of which there is presently no working model in our real world
& seemingly no working model seems be expected in the near future);
-M: People have already been ranked with SD2 – all that is needed is for people to use it to select leaders.
C:…& yet for all of the alleged genius those supporting your complex system,
-M: SD2 is not complex, it is very simple because the algorithm does the work.
C:[…]But for our organizing purposes, & while at these beginning stages;
it is fully adequate to address these very serious concerns from your more simplified and apparently secular-humanist perspective.
-M: I am a monotheistic religious humanist with a philosophical basis
with Kashmir Shaivism.
I consider my perspectives to be very advanced.
C: Yes, we seem in agreement: the “entrenched power” must be decentralized & distributed
amongst the common people, Correct?
-M: I want people to have power, but I am not going to assume what structure that is going to take(other than being unentrenched).
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
Mark,
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
(Charles Stewart; Proponent of a Common-Law based Voting-Program, which is available under two domains, here:C: Further; i do not believe you have at all proven that CLD2 usesa direct/simplified “first-order” form of counting. I consider thedivision & averaging process of the vote totals to be a secondaryalgorithmic process,& there-fore it is no longer of the “first order”.-M: Thats just a manipulation of the first order data – boring. There are no Markov chains here.
C: There are no “markov-chains” in our “Common-Law Direct-Democratic” (CLD2) Voting-Program; Correct.
But your comments about whether it id “boring” or not
are personal bias comments which have zero relevance to
the underlying controversy concerning
the usefulness of CLD2 as compared to SD2.
Again; i ask you to address the under-lying issue
of why you continue to allege that CLD2 is inadequate
for achieving the desired goals of empowering the common people.
I asked that on redundant occasions in my last post. You continue to ignore that central point in controversy, young sir. Why is that?
[…]C: Why did you not answer this central point, sir?M: The problem with CLC2 is the fact thatit is based on the in-degree algorithm,which determines the center of a social network with the depth of only one order.
C: To which i counter, that:There is no real problem with such shallow/simplified calculating algorithms determining the center of the social network, if the population of the society/community is sub-divided along pre-determined and balanced lines,
[…] Further, this simplified counting algorithm actually empowers common people more than SD2,because they can directly comprehend how it works, they can calculate for themselves that its results are true,…-M: SD2/PageRank is hard to calculate, but easy to verify -rank=(avg.invote strength)X# of votes.
C: You are merely defending your complex SD2/PageRank system. You are not addressing the central-issue concerning Why that complexity allegedly offers any superior advantages over the simplicity of CLD2.
Why does such a brilliant hamiltonian/capitalist as yourself
have such continuing problems focusing on
redundantly repeated central-issues as this, young sir?
C: “Counting” is 100 % fool-proof.C:…& they can there-by verify that no parasite-elitist classes are messing with their voting process through diebold style back-doors built into the program.-M: No, fake votes influence SD2 less than counting.
Especially when conducted at
the local smaller-community “Precinct” levels,
as CLD2 encourages.
How can SD2 be ‘less vulnerable’ than
the ‘100 % fool-poof’ process of CLD2?
You admit that SD2 is very complex, & that CLD2 is very simple.
Once again, your bold words defy logic & reason
and they contain zero argumentative-substance with-in them.
This is what is getting very “boring”, young sir.
[…]C: Well, your words here do presentI see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people using this voting program in this way, as you above words seem to imply, sir. Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.C: It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of the desired needs of the common people there-in.-M: Because the representation is limited to one level arbitrarily.
First, a Qualifies “Yes”, in that:
the CLD2 program does directly only authorize
a ‘single level of representation’.
However; when looked at the larger
wholistic/organic process which CLD2 invokes,
& considering its previously mentioned
but continuingly ignored “Immediate Recall” powers;
that lower single-level of representation can affect
every upper-level of the hierarchy,
& it can do all of this in time frames
much quicker than those contemplated in your SD2 notes.
For example, if one head of household decides that
he has just cause to break concensus and insist on
the removal of a 100-household precinct-captain from office,
then he needs to inform his 10-household governing town-constable
that he wants his town-constable to exercise
“immediate recall” power over that precinct-captain,
or else he as head of his household will exercise
his “immediate recall” powers over that town-constable.
This controversy will at least momentarily be contained in the township jurisdiction; & the other township members & the town constable will recognize that they have a serious concern on their hands, because their town-constable is being threatened with removal over an issue concerning an outside higher-jurisdiction officer.
The other members of the township will review the merits of the controversy, & will decide whether or not the charges against the precinct-captain are justified.
If the charges are considered “Justified”, the township members
will develop the much needed “Consensus”
with the household-head who is bringing the charges,
& they will agree that the town-constable should either
vote for ""immediate recall" of the precinct-captain
or be removed from his town-constable office.
If the members of the township decide that the charges are not justified; then the head of household will be informed to withdraw his demands, or loose his status as a “Qualified Elector” it the township, for “Breaking Consensus” in an un-reasonable & un-justifiable manner.
If the moving household-head believes his concerns are valid,
& that the other members of his township are insane or compromised;
his solutions are to either attempt to
find other members of the precinct who sympathize with his views,
& form a special precinct-based coalition to advance these concerns;
or to move to a new jurisdiction where his concerns can be recognized,
or where the leader in question has no authority. .
But if his concerns are justified,
as is implied by Your Implied Proposition that
“representation at multi higher-levels of hierarchy are needed”;
then these common-law communities are large enough so that
there will be other conscience-bound members of his township
who should become persuaded by the household-head’s entrenched arguments
& there-by they should be persuaded to vote to compel the town-constable
to vote for the “Immediate Recall” of the Precinct-Capitan,
Here-by; & through this
larger-viewed & “Consensus-Based” Decision-Making Process,
your critique that CLD2 is ineffective
allegedly because “representation is limited to one level”
is a false statement.
The single-level above each qualified-elector
can be compelled to carry the lower-jurisdictions concerns
to all multi-jurisdictional hierarchy levels above him.
Again; this is a “Consensus-Based” decision-making process, at Every-Level of the Hierarchy; & it all can be accomplished in “Real-Time”; & with much more efficiently than your SD2/PageRank guidelines suggest.
The individual voter can be threatened with loss of
their “Qualified Elector” status
if they Un-Justifiably “Break-Consensus” at any level.
If the local township-members come to believe that
the entrenched concerns of one of their members is “Justified”
they can effectively place in motion “Immediate Recall” demands,
which, if they can truly be proven to be justified,
they should empower that single voter & his convinced fellow township members
to remove from office the president of the USA
or the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
And this all will happen in manners which are
fully comprehensible to each & every
common/honest simpleton in the entire hierarchy,
& it is not dependent on any intellectually-inbred
egghead-based second-level algorithms
such as your SD2/PageRank system seems entrenched with.
C: Says you.-M: No its very orderly and non-arbitrary.By contrast PageRank is an adaptive multi-order algorithm that cangenerate multi-levels of hierarchy.C: Your page-rank/SD2 system seems to me to be chaotic & arbitrary.
Empty words spoken from a young hamiltonian/capitalist are not very convincing.
C: Maybe. They also contribute to the oppression of the chinese people by limiting their access to the free-market of information available in the internet.C: Your page-rank/SD2 voting model does not seem to reference any out-side models for imposing any “Order” on our other-wise chaotic planet.-M: Google organizes the web quite well.
Further, it would takes an advanced mathematician to document that google is not “cooking the books” in its page-ranking system, so almost no one is in any position to prove that your proposition is false.
In fact, i believe google has privacy-protected
certain elements of how their search-engines work,
so that the entire body of the code is not available to the public.
So, you dont actually know if they are really “cooking the books” or not. Yes?
C: Well; This is your “Best Argument” againstC:[…]Further, you again error when you say that CLD2 is “limited to one level” of representation.I have referred on multiple occasions to the multi-level hierarchy weseek for world governing[…],-M: You are using a single hierarchy algorithm to generate multiplelayered hierarchy. Boring.
That it is “Boring”?
That is your “Best Argument” against it?
I thought that we had agreed that the “litmus test” was whether or not the voting-program model in controversy could realistically be expected to empower the common people?
I did not realize that you were more concerned with
Entertaining hamiltonian-capitalists
so that hey would not be “Bored”,
than with empowering the common people.
[…]C: No. We previously agreed that the “single issue” is which of those single or multi-ordered voting-program models is most effective at bestowingC: Please; quit evading the central points in controversy, young sir.-M: The central issue is single order algorithms vs multi-orderalgorithms.
The contest is between the two models, “Yes”.
But it is not just about which model is most effective at
Entertaining hamiltonian-capitalists,
nor about which proponent can shout the loudest.
It is about rendering quality-empowerment to the common people; & you are continuing to evade that fully-framed central-controversy, young sir.
C: As i stated before;l;& you will take it in the spirit of good-healthy ‘rigor’ in which it isintended, Correct?-M: If you can. You will have to have a crash course in SNA and Markov algorithms-M: I am creating a new order where token concessions and appeasementto lemmingism will no longer be needed.C: Then you will appreciate my ‘ratcheting-up’ the intensity of my debate here with you,
My continuing requests that you provide such “clear and convincing argument” in support of your hamiltonian/capitalist/elitist arguments that your SD2/Page/Rank voting-program model is some-how superior, have continuingly fallen on your deaf-ears.
It is appearing that your smug words “if you can”
would better apply to your-self, young hamiltonian elitist.
C: How am i doing so far, hamiltonian?C: My father (bless his soul) used to say that there are many people who:“can dish it out, but can’t take it”. You can take every bit ofwell-reasoned constructive-criticismin the same intensity with which you frequently “dish it out”, Correct?-M: Give it a try.
C: Buckle your safety belt.C: You are this intense in your peer-criticism, for the singular purpose of setting a higher exampleof a disciplined rigorous model of debate & democracy which can producereal/workable empowerment the common people; Correct?-M: Absolutely.
C: Did i ask for “Education” concerning complex SD2/PageRank algorithms? Hmmmm; i dont seem to recall making that request, aristocrat.C: You are willing to test all of your propositions in such well-reasoned and rigorous debate, correct?-M: As long as I don’t have to waste time being the person’s educator.
Perhaps you can cut & past from my previous posts
where i made that request, Yes?
Declare in real/tangible terms Why our CLD2 voting-program model is either less than 100 % adequate, or inferior to SD2/Page/Rank, at filling the needs for empowering the common people, bored aristocrat.
-M: LOL! Being a hard-ass is my online persona. It is fun.In meat-space, I am very lovable. :-)C: I am inclined to believe you, & i am glad you enjoy my choice of words. But again, there are some serious issues on the table here, and these require the attention of our more hard=assed personas.-M: OK.
Yes.C: I gave partial review to the lengthy comments in the amazon link above. I would probably share your criticism of what appears to be over-liberalized mush-brain leftist philosophy.-M: I think that the poltical spectrum is designed to polarize peopleinto emotional bias. This makes them easier to control.
C: In order to organize them, i need them to “Register to Vote” in CLD2, on either voting-program here:-M: Then organize people and have them vote for each other. I will process the data.-M: With SD2, progress would not be delayed.C: We are “Delayed” by our present Waiting for SD2. […]
How about you ‘practicing what you preach’
by registering & voting on some of the issues contained
under either of those domains?
If you register under either of these domains;
you can review every other registered members profile,
& from that page you can vote a 0 to 100 weighted-vote
on his qualifications as a leader.
Please set the example by doing that, Mark.
Vote on me.
Give me a big fat “Zero” if you like.
Just quit the empty aristocrat noise-making
& do something constructive in this spiritual-battle for a change.
C: We really need to focus on the true issues before us, young sir. Please.I am fully aware that many people would considermy choice of words to be discomfortingly inter-personalto the point of perhaps actually being offensive.I like to bear my soul, so that fellow spiritual warriorswill know exactly where i am coming frombefore i begin ratcheting-up the intensity of my debate with them.That way, if & when consensus cannot be reached;then one of the two must logically be considered asnot truly seeking the best interests of the common people (sin),& my karma is much more clean.More to our point:You are speaking in the tones ofa natural-aristocrat/elitist leader, Mark.-M: Thank you.
C: I speak in those tones also.-M: I think so.
We will either learn to speak with as single harmonious voice,or one of us will abdicate his eligibility forthe position of ‘immediate-recall based’ democratic-monarch.I do not intend to abdicate my eligibility for that position, youngsir.I will voluntarily surrender it to one who, through open honest debate;proves him-self more qualified than me.-M: This will require more than debate, it may require you to prove yourself wrong with research.
C: Your above words are chosen with
the sloppiness of a drunken aristocrat, young sir.
Why on earth would i desire to “prove (my)self wrong with research”?
And translating to your probable intent that
i allegedly need to “prove myself right with research”;
that again evades my repeated central-argument that
i do not need to accomplish any additional research
because CLD2 is already 100 % efficient at
rendering quality-empowerment to the common people.
My only remaining problem is how to convince young aristocratic-eggheads to give our CLD2 voting-program the respect it deserves as a tool for rendering quality-empowerment to the common people.
Due to entrenched pre-conceived prejudices,
i am beginning to wonder if that goal is obtainable.
C: How am i doing so far?C: But i am not going to lemming-out that much-precious position for anyone.-M: OK.
Learn these algorithms: closeness, betweeness, and degree. Also learnwhat a markov-chain is. Prepare to tell me the difference between a 2nd and 3rd order Markovalgorithm. Use Google like I did to learn all of this.C: Through google, on “Markov Chain”, i found in Wikipedia:“The PageRank of a webpage as used by Google is defined by a Markovchain.” From your prodding, & without becoming a skilled mathematician;i believe i have come to grasp the basics of how “Page Rank” works.-M: Your comments to me will be the test.
C: How ? When ?? Where ???C: I see no reason for me to studyall of these complex mathematical formulations […]You continuetelling me of the alleged gloriesof this complex-mathematical algorithm-based system of voting,(of which there is presently no working model in our real world& seemingly no working model seems be expected in the near future);-M: People have already been ranked with SD2 – all that is needed is for people to use it to select leaders.
C: Then why is it necessary for me to do all of this research in order for me to comprehend its alleged superiority.C:…& yet for all of the alleged genius those supporting your complex system,-M: SD2 is not complex, it is very simple because the algorithm does the work.
You are speaking with forked-tongue, white-man.
C: Compared to the average goyim, you are very advanced. http://world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/387_0_15_0_C32/ http://conspiracyworld.com/index0096.htmit is fully adequate to address these very serious concernsfrom your more simplified and apparently secular-humanist perspective.-M: I am a monotheistic religious humanist with a philosophical basiswith Kashmir Shaivism.I consider my perspectives to be very advanced.
A “religious humanist”, Huh?
I was under the impression that such terms were mutually-exclusive.
But i admire the concept, & i could probably be considered similar.
I reviewed some references to Kashmir Shaivism:
http://www.kashmirshaivism.org/introduction.html
http://kheper.net/topics/Trika/Trika.htm
I believe my karma is sufficiently clean
to argue my cases before the gurus of this community.
Taker me to your leader, there-in, if you dare.
C: Do you see anything which you can specifically articulate which is wrong with the CLD2 “Structure”, as outlined here? http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/World12Divisions.htmlC: Yes, we seem in agreement: the “entrenched power” must be decentralized & distributedamongst the common people, Correct?-M: I want people to have power, but I am not going to assume whatstructure that is going to take (other than being unentrenched).
Do you admit the CLD2 model is “unentrenched”?
Can we focus on the real central-issues in controversy? Yet?
charles …
shantiMark, Seattle WA USAMark,
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Seems to me it makes much more sense as long as can without any speculation state what is right ad what is wrong.
After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs code of action in order of being effective.
Seems to me we should look at such definition, not in a definition of some fictive model that does not exist. This thing, this code of action would empower us and enable distinction based on regular person, which means no place for compromitation of such code.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
But, as you say:
After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs
code of action in order of being effective.
Being effective in this case means having a code of action on all
actors in politics.
And if we take away organizations, it will be very easy for individuals
to hide behind organizations..
Or how do you mean..?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hiding behind organization.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
But isn’t there a need for people to be able to rely on that a complete
organization is behaving according TOP?
How want’s to check up all members of a party for instance?
And how shall I value that 30% of the members in a party is
TOP-certified?
illegale skrev:
You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hidingbehind organization. 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Magnus. How many politicians are in AD, except you? How many of those are willing to run TOP? If all are, than I suppose the whole organization can accept such a policy all of you obey to.
Of course, you can accept those who are not willing to run TOP, but in that case AD is not TOP anymore.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on.
I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that the
will obey TOP.
A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into the
statutes of the party.
I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table.
I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot be
changes constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps,
after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.
And after such decision of improvemnt or change, there need to be a
certain time for the before certified organizations to implement it and
rewrite their statutes or other important rules.
If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certification
will be cancelled after this implementation time.
Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but in
the democary business I really see the need for certification) or
similar certifications in the industry.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in the anthill that would be…
Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations. And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quite incongruous. Most if not all certifications of individuals today are done following some kind of training and standardized form of exam or assessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermented public officers, etc).
A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure I assume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Where do you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given access to the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a long time (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that to check compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you see this in practical terms?
Best regards,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Serge wrote:
The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in theanthill that would be…Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations.And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quiteincongruous.Hmh. I am thinking about manifest, not certification. Thing that explains why I as a politician accept TOP in my work.
Most if not all certifications of individuals today aredone following some kind of training and standardized form of exam orassessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermentedpublic officers, etc).
In some time, it makes sense to make trainings for TOP politicians, as long as todays politician schools are based on regular politics where use of Internet is practically not existent. Doctors who teach young politicians in those schools regularly ignore internet. I do not blame them, as long as free info flow means completely new approach which eliminates big part of traditional doctrine.
A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure Iassume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Wheredo you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given accessto the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a longtime (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that tocheck compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you seethis in practical terms?
So. Why do I think about individual, not organization? In that way we do not have to make no speculations. All I need is my gut and feeling of what is right and what is wrong. I can write manifest for my name. It will be probably the same thing as other people who understand TOP philosophically will adopt. I know that some people who agree with that only at declarative level wont accept it and that is actually the point, as long as it is very popular among politicians to think that people are cattle/lemmings who do not deserve truth who can not respect truth, so that todays politics is just an image of what works fine. And these same people on declarative level are for free speach, freedom of information, public has the right to know and similar stuff. When I get oriented to myself only and what i feel, I do not have to think about these speculations of what other people think, which is rather importnat thing, I belive.
How does it look like? Like regular manifest. Saying what is not existing right now, what I am pissed off at, what I believe it is important and why I do things in a way I do them. Of course, to make some better thing, stuff needs to be passed through many more brains, but this is the start that makes sense to me. It has nothing to certification houses, but mere explanation why TOP anyway? What I want to do with TOP, why do I work in a TOP manner even when it is not so opportunistic and why it pays off.
In that way some other “maybe” thinkers might make final decision and become TOP which is rather important thing.
ATB,
Gale
Best regards,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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Gale,
Emmanuel knew about this already, so maybe you do too, but is the
following pledge what you had in mind?
http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50
by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to a
republican.
Regards,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Thx Serge.
I did not now for him.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
S: […]but is the following pledge what you had in mind?http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to arepublican
-M: *R*epublican not *r*epublican.
example: I am a republican but not a Republican.
Proper noun vs. common noun.
S: Regards, Serge
-M: I haven’t promoted this before, but I do like the idea of individual politicians using SD2-S.
In American politics(or other non-parlimentary systems), this would probably be quite useful for the Speaker of the state or federal house or senate. Citizens Forum? Maybe it could be a parallel to City Council, State Legislature, or Federal Legislature.
People , from the beginning I have promoted SD2/SD2-S as not a
replacement of current political processes, but as a collective
action management system that can be used for political purposes among
many other purposes.
And the political purposes are meant to suppliment and parallel current
constitutional processes without the need of change of these.
Inroads are:
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?hl=en
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on.I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that thewill obey TOP.A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into thestatutes of the party.AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.
I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table.I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot bechanges constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps,after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.And after such decision of improvement or change, there need to be acertain time for the before certified organizations to implement it andrewrite their statutes or other important rules.If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certificationwill be cancelled after this implementation time.Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but inthe democary business I really see the need for certification) orsimilar certifications in the industry.
Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become certificator?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.
-But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide in
all issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizens
participating..
More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
certificator?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.-But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide inall issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizensparticipating..More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment :-) ATB,Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv becomecertificator?- :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, calledTOP.The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world couldparticipate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas ofTOP.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.
-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will in
an AD-system.
For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.
But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero
(citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.
The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politicians
and organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to take
ower in the future.
So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.
Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment
-Yes!
Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to which
all certified organizations can connect and be connected as long as
they fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this international
organzation?
Can Tiaktiv be this international org?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
Indeed. And it should be, actually. We are far from the moment when we sould reach concensus based on experience and wider knowledge.More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want tomake certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested inpolitics in this very time and I want to enable those who arepolitically active right now to empower them with this certification.So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will havedifferent products too.-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will inan AD-system.For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero(citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politiciansand organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to takeower in the future.So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.
Maybe we should reach Stallman to help us out about creating such organisation. The problem I see in this very moment (in Tiaktiv) is the statute that has too many gaps not to be easily overtaken by the people that might be far from TOP. As long as this problem is not solved, I am not willing to link organisation directly to any decision we might find correct.Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment-Yes!Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to whichall certified organizations can connect and be connected as long asthey fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this internationalorganzation?
Can Tiaktiv be this international org?
We in Tiaktiv are oriented towards creating structure for TOP politics. In that manner it might be good think. Yet, Tiaktiv as formal organisation is rather weak and I do not trust to its form. So, I hope we will get into contact to Stallman (he developed GNU licence) to see how could we svolve our issue in the best manner we could.
BTW. In this very time I believe we do not need any organisation for development of any TOP definition. For an example, Tiaktiv might support one definition AD develops, or vice versa. I believe this way might solve the potential problem.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
People,
Apparently Rodriguez has been googling around and he stumbled accross
my thread.
He has since sent me this paper for us to read:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/grammar-decision-hicss2007.pdf
Rodriguez,
since Brad and Victor have been slow about getting me onto Smartocracy,
I would like to critique a few points about its current form, both
theoreticly and how it is implimented, here at this site instead of
waiting to get onto Smartocracy:
What the hell is a ‘perfect’ decision? Its as if you were using DD as
the ideal by which to measure your(also our- SD2 is augmented too) RD
system.
If so, why not just have DD?
My approach is this:
some centrality algorithms(when used democraticly) are more predictive
of the future outputs of competing algoithms then vice-versa.
This ties into the idea that RD is for leadership selection, and real
leaders are pre-emptive of knowing what policies should be popular in
the future.
So any good centrality algorithm should find such people, making their
output more pre-emptive than competing outputs.
Rodriguez, these are only nit-picks, and I am jazzed Smartocracy. I would love to get involved.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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:
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
To whom do you think the country belongs?
(a) God; (b) The Representative of God; © He who has the Mandate of Heaven; (d) The Rich and the Powerful; (e) The Masses (the people minus the rich and powerful); (f) The People; or (g) Someone else (state who he is)
Do give reasons for your opinion, belief or comments.
Best Regards Eric Lim (lpc1998)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:18:05AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
To whom do you think the country belongs?(a) God;(b) The Representative of God;© He who has the Mandate of Heaven;(d) The Rich and the Powerful;(e) The Masses (the people minus the rich and powerful);(f) The People; or(g) Someone else (state who he is)(f)
First of all, ideologically I would speak about happiness and its pursuit, which is our goal in life.
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. But there is still a right to idiocy!!!
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)
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
echarp
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
eL: To whom do you think the country belongs?(a) God;(b) The Representative of God;© He who has the Mandate of Heaven;
-M: All the above. But this is just my opinion. SD2 isn’t a God detector unless the inputs are good God detectors.
(d) The Rich and the Powerful;
-M: They create stability, but inequality. They usually aren’t lemmings, but will squeeze the people for all the cheap labor they can.
(e) The Masses (the people minus the rich and powerful);
-M: Sounds a bit discriminitory. I am not classist.
(f) The People; or
-M: This seems like the least arbitrary source for data inputs into a
centrality algorithm.
This is my top choice.
ec: […] (freedom ends where the freedom of others begins)[…]
-M: And…
ec: If one take bad decisions, then he will most certainly be the first to
suffer about it.
-M: A contradiction?
ec: […]But there is still a right to idiocy!!!
-M: So now the world’s most powerful nation has a right to be DUPED into choosing an IMPERIALISTIC president?
NO! There is NO RIGHT to idiocy because it means that others have to suffer.
ec: My conclusion? Personal freedom is the basis of my political thoughts. […]
-M: So? By which data field and centrality algorithm will you use to impement this?
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mark(1): To whom the country belongs?
===========
[Eric]: “To whom do you think the country belongs?
(a) God; (b) The Representative of God; © He who has the Mandate of Heaven; (d) The Rich and the Powerful; (e) The Masses (the people minus the rich and powerful); (f) The People; or (g) Someone else (state who he is)
Do give reasons for your opinion, belief or comments."
[Latest comments by Mark]: “(a) God; (b) The Representative of God; © He who has the Mandate of Heaven;
All the above. But this is just my opinion.
SD2 isn’t a God detector unless the inputs are good God detectors.
…..
(f) The People; or
This seems like the least arbitrary source for data inputs into a
centrality algorithm.
This is my top choice.
[Latest comments by Eric]: Are you saying that the country, in fact, belongs to 4 co-owners namely (a), (b), © and (f) as stated above?
It is only your top personal choice, if you have one, that the country should belong to the People. However, your top personal choice does not override the fact that the country actually belongs to 4 co-owners. Is this correct?
Best Regards
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
“Freedom ends where the freedom of others start”
Freedom, the political one, is a matter of social relations. Can I do something or not? If what I do has no impact on anybody else, then it is of no one concern. If I interact with someone else, then it requires agreement.
Everything beyond that, rape, murder, physical altercations, is a matter of police, justice, electronic restraints, jail.
This is a foundation to everything I am saying.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:52:12AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
However, before we discuss these consequences, there is one issue weneed to determine first: Does each citizen so long as he (includingshe) remains a part of this entity called the People have the same andequal rights of ownership of the country as each and every othercitizen regardless race, religion, social status, wealth, age, ability,intelligence, etc,?I would rather not use the term “owning”. Every body able to express himself can do so equally in the political system.
Are you saying individual personal happiness is one of the fundamentalrights of the people?
More strongly, that the search for happiness is our motivation. As thus it is definitely a fundamental right.
[echarp]:“…. But there is still a right to idiocy!!!”[Eric]:But “idiocy” is not a right. It is a mental condition of people; somehave 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.
We are all the idiot of someone else. And I claim my right to be such an idiot. I want to be able to appear as an idiot of some one else.
If my actions have consequences touching on others, then it is a matter of freedom, see my definition above.
[Eric]:Would panarchy in reality be the breaking of a country into manycountries violating the territorial interigty of nations?
Quite a leap of comprehension isn’t it? :-)
Let’s say that panarchy would be a matter of contracts between all individuals willing to enter them.
It is not geographically based.
Anyway, I do not think that this system can be implemented nowadays, I just want to implement a tool that can be useful.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
echarp(2): To whom the country belongs?
============
[echarp]:
""Freedom ends where the freedom of others start"
Freedom, the political one, is a matter of social relations. Can I do
something or not? If what I do has no impact on anybody else, then it
is
of no one concern. If I interact with someone else, then it requires
agreement.
Everything beyond that, rape, murder, physical altercations, is a
matter
of police, justice, electronic restraints, jail.
This is a foundation to everything I am saying."
[Eric]: Okie, you have a restricted definition for “freedom”
============
[echarp]: “I would rather not use the term “owning”. Every body able to express himself can do so equally in the political system."
[Eric]: Do you support democracy? If you do, how do you justify democracy over other political systems?
[echarp]:
“More strongly, that the search for happiness is our motivation. As
thus
it is definitely a fundamental right.”
[Eric]: Presumably, you want it to be enshrined in the Constitution too?
[echarp]:
“We are all the idiot of someone else. And I claim my right to be such
an
idiot. I want to be able to appear as an idiot of some one else.
If my actions have consequences touching on others, then it is a matter of freedom, see my definition above."
[Eric]: Okie, you want the right to appear and to claim to be an idiot, even if you are in fact not.
So if your actions have consequences touching adversely on others, maybe unintentionally, in the exercise of freedom as defined by you, idiocy could be a very convenient defence. Is this correct?
[echarp]: “Quite a leap of comprehension isn’t it? :-)
Let’s say that panarchy would be a matter of contracts between all individuals willing to enter them.
It is not geographically based."
[Eric]: Panarchy, a matter of contacts and not a political system for the country? So if there are a few thousand people willing to acknowledge you as king for some consideration, then you are a king to your willing subjects. Is this correct?
But you will still be subjected to the laws of the land, just like any other citizens and this will curtail your royal powers substantially. Is this correct?
Best Regards
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:33:35AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
Okie, you have a restricted definition for “freedom”It is not my only definition of freedom, just the one I use here.
I define it before using it (something we should always do).
Do you support democracy? If you do, how do you justify democracy overother political systems?
I don’t support democracy per se, I want people, you, me, to have the maximum amount of freedom possible and it seems the best system for it nowadays. Yet I also fear tyranny of the majority, a right to secession would be the ultimate protection against it, don’t you agree?
(there are other protections, just this one would be the ultimate one)
Presumably, you want it to be enshrined in the Constitution too?
A constitution could just be a document stating what is allowed or not by our governing organisations. I’d rather it not to define what I want or not.
So if your actions have consequences touching adversely on others,maybe unintentionally, in the exercise of freedom as defined by you,idiocy could be a very convenient defence. Is this correct?
If my actions go against the freedom of others, then it is a matter of police, justice, electronic constraint, jail. Possibly the psychiatric hospital too, or a remote camera set on your shoulder to make sure you don’t again trespass on the freedom of others.
Panarchy, a matter of contacts and not a political system for thecountry? So if there are a few thousand people willing to acknowledgeyou as king for some consideration, then you are a king to your willingsubjects. Is this correct?
Yes
But you will still be subjected to the laws of the land, just like anyother citizens and this will curtail your royal powers substantially.Is this correct?
Yes. I just would desire for those laws to be minimal. But this is not something very well defined in my mind yet, so no need to sift through it with a comb. Take it as just one more idea in your comprehension of political possibilities.
Right now, I envision and design a collaborative writing tool, not for nations, but for groups, free associations.
Being optimistic can be nice at times, but there is no chance that one of our tools will be used at the level of a country in the next coming decades!
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
echarp(3): To whom the country belongs?
=========
[echarp]: “I don’t support democracy per se, I want people, you, me, to have the maximum amount of freedom possible and it seems the best system for it nowadays. Yet I also fear tyranny of the majority, a right to secession would be the ultimate protection against it, don’t you agree?
(there are other protections, just this one would be the ultimate one)"
[Eric]: This issue highlights the importance for democrats everywhere to realize that the Tyranny of the Majority is not democracy; it is the failure of democracy for democracy means the Rule by the People, an entity that includes those not with the majority decision. Those who misuse the ballot box and convert it into an instrument of oppression are no democrats.
Now the every act of secession means the collapse of democracy as the secessionists (presuming a minority) have rejected the majority decision for the country and have opted for independence. With such a collapse, democratic principles do not apply to the disputing parties any more since democracy no longer exist for them and their differences would have to be settled by undemocratic means. In such a situation, the country would plunge into civil war, if the secessionists are strong enough to wage one.
The only exception to this is when the secession is constitutional and agreed by the majority which is seldom the case.
A constitutional guarantee for autonomy for local matters is usually the preferred alternative to secession.
[echarp]: “A constitution could just be a document stating what is allowed or not by our governing organisations. I’d rather it not to define what I want or not.”
[Eric]: You are wise. Happiness is such a personal thing. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. So it is impossible to have a constitutional guarantee for the happines of each and every citizen.
Fundamental rights of citizens can be enshrined in the Constitution like the Bill of Rights in the US. However, such rights are of little use to the ordinary citizens, if the Constitution itself is impotent for them.
Best Regards
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 08:40:35AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
Now the every act of secession means the collapse of democracy as thesecessionists (presuming a minority) have rejected the majoritydecision for the country and have opted for independence. With such acollapse, democratic principles do not apply to the disputing partiesany more since democracy no longer exist for them and their differenceswould have to be settled by undemocratic means. In such a situation,the country would plunge into civil war, if the secessionists arestrong enough to wage one.Secession is above and stronger than democracy, it just means “leave me alone”. What is wrong with that?
Why even call it a civil war? It is just a war where one group wants to control another one.
Can’t two groups settle their differences with diplomatic means instead???
The only exception to this is when the secession is constitutional andagreed by the majority which is seldom the case.
Let’s agree that this right would be constitutional. There, now it is legal.
A constitutional guarantee for autonomy for local matters is usuallythe preferred alternative to secession.
Of course, secession is the last and ultimate solution.
What is wrong with it? Do you want a big world government or would you prefer an European union federation, or even UN organisation, where membership is voluntary?
echarp
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
echarp(4): To whom the country belongs?
============
[echarp]: “Of course, secession is the last and ultimate solution.
What is wrong with it? Do you want a big world government or would you prefer an European union federation, or even UN organisation, where membership is voluntary?"
[Eric]: Yes, we need badly a global government, but that government must be truly democratic serving the people of the world and not for it to be an instrument of a gang enslaving and exploiting the rest of the world.
And the first step towards to a democratic global government is to work out an effective democratic model at the national level. And I believe that is why so many people are at the internet like all of us here trying to propose or find such a model.
Best Regards
Eric 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
From: lpc1998
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:33:35 -0700
Subject: Re: To whom the country belongs?
To: “top-politics” <top-politics@googlegroups.com>
echarp(2): To whom the country belongs?
============
[echarp]:
""Freedom ends where the freedom of others start"
Freedom, the political one, is a matter of social relations. Can I do
something or not? If what I do has no impact on anybody else, then it
is
of no one concern. If I interact with someone else, then it requires
agreement.
Everything beyond that, rape, murder, physical altercations, is a
matter
of police, justice, electronic restraints, jail.
This is a foundation to everything I am saying."
[Eric]: Okie, you have a restricted definition for “freedom”
============
[echarp]: “I would rather not use the term “owning”. Every body able to express himself can do so equally in the political system."
[Eric]: Do you support democracy? If you do, how do you justify democracy over other political systems?
[echarp]:
“More strongly, that the search for happiness is our motivation. As
thus
it is definitely a fundamental right.”
[Eric]: Presumably, you want it to be enshrined in the Constitution too?
[echarp]:
“We are all the idiot of someone else. And I claim my right to be such
an
idiot. I want to be able to appear as an idiot of some one else.
If my actions have consequences touching on others, then it is a matter of freedom, see my definition above."
[Eric]: Okie, you want the right to appear and to claim to be an idiot, even if you are in fact not.
So if your actions have consequences touching adversely on others, maybe unintentionally, in the exercise of freedom as defined by you, idiocy could be a very convenient defence. Is this correct?
[echarp]: “Quite a leap of comprehension isn’t it? :-)
Let’s say that panarchy would be a matter of contracts between all individuals willing to enter them.
It is not geographically based."
[Eric]: Panarchy, a matter of contacts and not a political system for the country? So if there are a few thousand people willing to acknowledge you as king for some consideration, then you are a king to your willing subjects. Is this correct?
But you will still be subjected to the laws of the land, just like any other citizens and this will curtail your royal powers substantially. Is this correct?
Best Regards
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
+0
New discussion
Answer
(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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mange(1): To whom the country belongs?
===========
[Mange]:
“(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)"
[Eric]: You are right, if the country is a democracy.
Whereas in a monarchy, the king or emperor owns the country and everything in it including the people. Similarly, in an oligarchy or a theocracy, the owner is the gang of the rich and powerful or God (or equivalent) respectively.
So who owns the country, in fact, determines the political system of the country.
Best Regards
Eric 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Well, maybe in a practical way, I was talking from a moral standpoint..
But whats right morally is in the end the right answer. In non truly
democratic countries (that is more or less all of them) the citizen
have only borowed their county to the leaders or the pack that call
themselves leaders.
Laws that are not morally accepted is not valid and history has shown
time after time that they can’t persist, only fear stops citizens to
break them.
So laws saying a parliament/king/mob owns the country for instance is
only a temporary and not always final answer.
When it comes to owning of land, things can be a little more
complicated:
In fact, the moral law says that the ones ancestor that had or where
part of the strongest war force or have been there first should be the
owner.
Everything else is some kind of stealing.
The problem is only to proof that you are the rightful owner, the
history hides many stolen propertys…
[Eric]:You are right, if the country is a democracy.Whereas in a monarchy, the king or emperor owns the country andeverything in it including the people. Similarly, in an oligarchy or atheocracy, the owner is the gang of the rich and powerful or God (orequivalent) respectively.So who owns the country, in fact, determines the political system ofthe country. 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Mange(2): To whom the country belongs?
============
Let us start from the point where a country’s existence is not under dispute. To go beyond that into history would complicate the matter terribly.
Now for our purpose, would you agree that any political system that does not build on the foundation that the people are the owners of country is undemocratic and, therefore not acceptable to us?
Best Regards
Eric 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Sure!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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 LimMark <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: thesovereignty 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 sourceof 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 existingpolitical 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 onimportant 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 keepthe 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 thenew 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 ademocracy 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 thePeople, at least the following conditions must be met:
a The political representative(s) must be freely elected orchosen 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 isthat 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 decentralizedpolitical 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”
[…]
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. Transparencemakes 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 tounderstand what makes leaders bad. What do you think are the reasons for this phenomenon?”
[Gale]:"It is the alopoietic, parasitic moral pattern, leaders have totake 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, theyhave 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. Butafter 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 .
“[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
+0
New discussion
Answer
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 absolutely agree.
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?
I am eager to comment, but it seems Mark has already find pretty cool formulations for promotion of sd-2. So, lets see whats up :-)
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?
Let me say I agree, but it does not mean too much as long as people is actually pretty vague term, considering the fact there is no somethig you can say it is peoples thought. So, what we can talk about is projections of the people minds such as 50%+1 or principles that enable these people make proper decisions for good of society.
As long as first stuff is stuff of political decision that can be different in a matter of exact situation, I am more interesting in discusing of the common principles that we find to be platform for any system that can carry the name of democracy.
Freedom of speach is one of those principles. Equal rights people gain by their birth is another one. And so on.
Mark <parashakti108@…> wrote:—gale wrote:having[Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we areactually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without
in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."level[Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: thesovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest
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 DictionarydemocracyMain Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ciesEtymology: 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.]
And it appears to be rightous.
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 exampleof
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’.][…]4 : 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 evenchildren
and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common people’ to the extreme.]
I agree. This system enables to people to penetrate to the whole system, instead of lousy touch based on every 4 years election between those who menaged to gain 10 000 000s of milions of $ for their marketing.
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.]———————————————————————howE: The immediate question arising from this definition is that
do the people exercise their sovereignty and make decisions as the “people” is not a single organism with one brain, but made upof
numerous individuals. So this implies majority decision which atthe
very least is 50% + 1 and the right to vote. So in practice, the sovereignty of the people = the sovereignty of the electoral majority.“Though,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.
as long as we are creating completely new approach towardspolitics,
we can not take something arbitrary stuff for base. One morething.
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 mightuse
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 basisfor
SD2.Eric, why do you think that first-order algorithms(in-degree, counting) are the only way to process voting data?thing.[Gale]:”But Eric. Why do you find this be democracy? Imagine next
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 interpretpolitical
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.[…]existingI agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the
political system that allows the incumbent President to createsuch
a political reality with impunity and in keeping the majority ofthe
people extremely ignorant of their political choices oreffectively
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 isnot
in the people, but somwhere else. :- ) -M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.
Oligarchy is compromised, that is true. But the problem is that the whole system (Administration, Parties, NGOs, Media, Church, Academics, virtualy every single one who creates a body of government in any manner) is in deal to oligarchy. Most of the people are actually directly dependent on these centers, so there is a very small number of people who are willing to trully challenge oligarchy. This part, at least in Croatia is extremely though one, very hard to overide. Though, the fact is that the time is working for us :-)
will[Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way America
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. Andshe
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.
Yes. What I like in your idea is the fact of already existing trust and infulence network that can not be compromised by media as long as that network has a very hard societal base. It is pretty imune to todays ways of political dirty fight, at least some of them. For other ones we will have to find some solutions.
averageFully agree with you that it is preposterous to have referendumsfor every single political question or “policy” and that the
citizen does need a competent political representative to serveand
not to rule.similarCool-M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists would have ranks, and could have regular meet-ups with those of a
rank. And the SD2 algorithm makes for rapid upward and downward mobility within the hierarchy.
I like the idea of hard to gain, easy to lose. It makes people be responsible in order of protection of their political capital. Basic instinct stuff.
[…]onThe problem of poor quality voters making horrendous decisions
important matters could only be resolved by the politicaleducation
of the voters. Such political education with the overallfunctioning
of the new political system must enable the voters to elect competent and trustworthy representatives to make good decisionson
their behalf.incompetentPersonally, I find it totally unacceptable, on one hand to keepthe average citizens politically ignorant, confused and
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.not.So the political education of the voters is a core issue in thenew 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
But if the right decision makers were in place, what would bewrong
with the commoner imposing ignorance on themselves(as they usually do)?interest.What I do see is tat nobody knows everything. So, we need thesystem that will make possible to those who know about some particular issue to make decisions for the societies best
That is the story about trust networks, influence networks, MarksSD-
2 and so on. That is the way I support.-M: :-);-)
between[Gale]:"So, is this democracy? Is democracy the idea that majority letsome informed man with reputation to make decision? Or is that false democracy, we have to eliminate? To eliminate anything
uninformed 50%1 majority and political decision? What is so cool about that Eric? I do not find anything cool about it."isI do agree with you that there is nothing inconsistent in ademocracy 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 thePeople, at least the following conditions must be met:a The political representative(s) must be freely elected orchosen 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 thepeople and country; andWho is the one who decides something is good? What I can notice
that we need new entity we will find be satisfactory for this. -M: With SD2, everyone knows who the top ranked people are, andwho
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 realtime.
thec The decisions must not be made for the good and benefits of
decision-maker or of his backer or controller at the expense ofthe
people or country.system.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 politicalsystem lies. Otherwise, there is no need for a new political
like__________________________________________________Agreed.-M: Yes, and this core problem has a solution – SD2.[Gale]:"Let me say something else. I do not link democracy to things
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:existDemocracy is the political system with completely decentralizedpolitical 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 “politicalsubjects” and “political objects”?Are you advocating a political jungle where the fittest survives?I am advocating full transparency and opennes. Transparencemakes good be possible. Opennes makes the best fit to the position they are for. About those who are weak. The fact is that weak
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 problemwith
weak ones. -M: With SD2, a statecraft community would probably have its nosein
almost every state of affairs in the government. I think that extreme transparency would evolve.direction."[Gale]: “….. So, let me say what made me act. It was injustice and thefact that I saw many bad people leading this world in bad
So, I want to open political market and to set some new political principles that will make the new leadership become responsiblefor
their actions. …..”reasons[Eric Lim]:“In order to be successful in this endeavour, we need tounderstand what makes leaders bad. What do you think are the
for this phenomenon?”to[Gale]:"It is the alopoietic, parasitic moral pattern, leaders have totake 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
the rules of the system. And here comes the problem. Theyprofilate
in a manner that after a while they promote injustice as long asin
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?burdenCmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while, theyhave to give up from these ideals as long as they are to big
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.
Hehe. It is not bad to apear that you know what is the todays problem, because in that way you can be more persuative when suggesting something different :-D
[…]ButIn the other hand, you can imagine good guys get to politics.
after a while one gets a bullet, the other one gets back becausehe
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, theywill
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 tosomebody
else? Ain’t these Bush/Kerry guys much better crew with a dark secrets that bind them?isLunatic can get off of the politics? But why? After all, theprocess has profilated him to what he today is. Why loose it? it
against his nature.noI 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 wontbe 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
natural enemy. I want to make feed back mechanism where responsibility will be encouraged and irresponsibilitydiscouraged.
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. Ifthe
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 muchof
the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.shantiMark, SeattleATB,
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
-“geoerdeaen” wrote:
-lpc1998 wrote:
L: Thank you, Mark, for your interesting comments.
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.L: You have stated, among other things, that "SD2 tries to
G: I absolutely agree.
-M: Thanx y’all.
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?L: I have only a vague idea of how SD2 works or will work in
-M: Simple: the highest ranked three or five, that also want to be directors, would be directors.
If the top-ranked do not want to be directors, their votes would still be extremely strong, and may strongly influence director selection.
1% of 1,000 is 10. A board of five directors and five advisors could occur with SD2. Only one would be the executive with full- time expectations.
G: I am eager to comment, but it seems Mark has already find pretty
cool formulations for promotion of sd-2. So, lets see whats up :-)
by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say in all matters concerning the country and the people?L: Btw, are you agreeble to democracy being defined as the Rule
-M: Kind of.
G: Let me say I agree, but it does not mean too much as long as
people is actually pretty vague term, considering the fact there is no somethig you can say it is peoples thought. So, what we can talk about is projections of the people minds such as 50%+1 or principles that enable these people make proper decisions for good of society.
-M: ‘Vague’ – agreed. What ‘will’ of ‘the people’ is seems less tangible then an actual mechanism, like voting.
So I say ‘democracy’ is where 50%+1 are allowed to vote. Past this, its the variations of the centrality algorithms that make for the different ‘flavors’ of democracy and democratic-republicanism.
This is a controversial definition because it means that the USA was not founded as a democratic-republic, but as an oligarchic-republic. It wasn’t a democratic-republic until women were allowed to vote.
G: As long as first stuff is stuff of political decision that can
be different in a matter of exact situation, I am more interesting in discusing of the common principles that we find to be platform for any system that can carry the name of democracy. Freedom of speach is one of those principles. Equal rights people gain by their birth is another one. And so on.
-M: The common principle for democracy is voting. What else would it be? These other things are ideological(what democracy should be), not structural(what democracy is).
authority means the people have the final say on all matters concerning the country and people.Mark wrote:—gale wrote:having[Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we areactually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without
in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."level of authority in the country. Having the highest level of[Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: thesovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest
+1]because this is the algorithm easiest to impliment.]-M: (interspirsed comments:)-—————————————————Merriam-Webster Online DictionarydemocracyMain Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ciesEtymology: 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 [50%
G: And it appears to be rightous.
democracy during the French revolution are examples of this.]b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in thepeople and exercised by them directly…
[-M: Ancient Athenian democracy and FAILED French direct-
example 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
It would also be a ‘democratic republic’.]2 : a political unit that has a democratic government[-M: A political unit organized by SD2 would be a ‘democracy’.
source of political authority[…]4 : the common people especially when constituting the
people’ to the extreme.][-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 evenchildren and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common
G: I agree. This system enables to people to penetrate to the whole
system, instead of lousy touch based on every 4 years election between those who menaged to gain 10 000 000s of milions of $ for their marketing.
-M: OK.
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. :- )[…]existing political system that allows the incumbent President toI agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the
-M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.
G: Oligarchy is compromised, that is true. But the problem is that
the whole system (Administration, Parties, NGOs, Media, Church, Academics, virtualy every single one who creates a body of government in any manner) is in deal to oligarchy. Most of the people are actually directly dependent on these centers, so there is a very small number of people who are willing to trully challenge oligarchy. This part, at least in Croatia is extremely though one, very hard to overide. Though, the fact is that the time is working for us :-)
-M: Fortuately the oligarchy can’t stop SD2. What are they going to do – outlaw mathematics and Social Network Analysis?
Suckers! We are going to win. :-)
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 politicalwill have to fight on its own land? How shall Jane vote about this[Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way Americaquestion? What are the facts that make her vote so? Remember.
process, can not know enough to be valid reference."assholes who are in the process. Those who are not in the
statecraft community where the common person and the bottom ranks are not expected to be fully informed and competent politicians.-M: Fortunately SD2 can be used to create a hierarchal
G: Yes. What I like in your idea is the fact of already existing
trust and infulence network that can not be compromised by media as long as that network has a very hard societal base. It is pretty imune to todays ways of political dirty fight, at least some of them. For other ones we will have to find some solutions.
M: :)
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.Fully agree with you that it is preposterous to have
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.Cool-M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists
G: I like the idea of hard to gain, easy to lose.
-M: Yes, gains would be harder than the losses because to rise, the person would have to be competitive with those who already have established competitiveness.
G: It makes people be responsible in order of protection of their
political capital. Basic instinct stuff.
M: :)
[…]
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)? […]Do our views converge here at this point?-M: No. Finding the right representitives algorithmicly makes
as it gets. […]For the decisions to be made in accordance to the Will of thePeople, at least the following conditions must be met:a The political representative(s) must be freely elected orchosen 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
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.Cmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while,
system where those who do understand it could peer-review one another, and where the worthy could rise. SD2.-M: Why even bother trying to understand it? Just create a
G: Hehe. It is not bad to apear that you know what is the todays
problem, because in that way you can be more persuative when suggesting something different :-D
M: OK. :)
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.-M: To add: The 50%+1 are not accountable the the 50%-1. If
ATB, Gale
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
Yahoo! Groups Links
+0
New discussion
Answer
geoerdeaen wrote:
—- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “charles.opensource” <charles@…> wrote:Yes.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?
I am glad you are speaking your concerns plainly, Gale.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 thesedomains.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 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,GaleThese are links which illustrate the email and bbs programsavailable:
http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-politics_directdemocraticgov.orghttp://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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
I agree with those who point on Google’s commercial interest + their
behaviour regarding censorship etc.
But, we have to leave Yahoo..
I also agree to the creation of a new, more proffesional site where we
will use all the state of the art tools as PHPbb, tikiwiki, or
whatever.
Still I see many discussing the proper in moving to google for now.
As I see it it is only a temporary solution!
I’m convinced that we on this google list will be able to find concesus
about the next step.
Until then, I will only use this list. (Google).
BR/
Mange (Previous Karl)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Okay, let us hold back the voting on the topics since you have some more things to say.
Best Regards Eric Limillegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Thank you Eric for your kindness.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
I vote for no. 2. (Happily noting that we are run direct democratically from now..:-)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
I vote for no. 2.(Happily noting that we are run direct democratically from now..:-)Your cast is noiced :-)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Markus Schatten wrote:
mS: […] 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 withoutfocusing on special requirements of special problems.-M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlap between the two umbrellas.
mS: 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 […] have the same problem,…
-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t have specialists.
mS:…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).
-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part? Can’t someone:
SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scaleis allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to supportit. 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 manypaperwork this is.[…]
-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for the sake of scaleability.
Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracy defaults?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Mark
On Friday 08 September 2006 23:09, Mark wrote:
Markus Schatten wrote:Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;-)mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.-M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.
OK ;-)mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.SD-2 […] have the same problem,…-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.
No they don’t.mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?
Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?
Yes (to all four).
SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
Yes it does.
It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)? A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in which you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a nice place to publish it :-PmS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.
M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.
mS: Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;)-M: OK, I just wanted to be sure that you remembered. Also others benefit by this clarification.
mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.SD-2 […] have the same problem,…
-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.
mS: OK ;-)-M: Even then it wouldn’t nessicarily be a problem because the directors could choose to use a specialist system.
mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).
-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?mS: No they don’t.Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?mS: Yes (to all four).
SD2-S allows for this flexibility.mS: Yes it does.
mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?
mS: It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)?-M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on a piece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have further input constraints on this algorithm.
mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in whichyou describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a niceplace to publish it :-P
-M: I’ll do that!
mS: For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOPsystem), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.
-M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints.
Pimki is similar to a wiki,
http://pimki.rubyforge.org/
and has network graphing capability
http://www.graphviz.org/
This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchal
control.
Is this a good idea?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP, i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for “participatory?”
In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to its members, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimate transformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully open and transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately, as they see fit.
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it will become much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public, and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far more efficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutually beneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and the public as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once they are doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending on the rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewards innovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., it issues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, I think that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, but rather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking, the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond the individual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged or asleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannot be by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may set filters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximum intelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense could represent the entire output of an individual.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual - any individual
- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing the
system. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can be
forced to be a proxy.
Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that there will be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. In a communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, in particular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too many clients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. The abstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there is not a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, you will have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not direct power, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuade your clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e., the proxies of people who are not going to actually contribute anything, is simply collecting dead weight.
This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runs quite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics. Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes, instead of establishing intelligent process. Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence must come first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.
To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open, public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private and secret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities are with TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operate privately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes the other one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom of selecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An example of such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximumintelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense couldrepresent the entire output of an individual.
OK.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual- any individual- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing thesystem. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can beforced to be a proxy.Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that therewill be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. Ina communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, inparticular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too manyclients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. Theabstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there isnot a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, youwill have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not directpower, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuadeyour clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e.,the proxies of people who are not going to actually contributeanything, is simply collecting dead weight.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes,instead of establishing intelligent process.
Going our way does not exlude adoptation process. Especially not in the open systems.
Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence mustcome first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open,public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private andsecret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities arewith TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operateprivately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? What we see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existing political paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controling information. So, if that can make the World the better place, if that is what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed its efficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatible to politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternative network based on internet?. One more thing. About networks. This is the project pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if one sentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, he turns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers to work together or to support those with greater chance.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeed in agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join my network. And that is not so easy task. Especially in the moment people under pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So, what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he can delegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment? I understand that you have larger picture in your head, but that picture is simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedure withouth feeling a pulse of others. And as long as others did not feel that pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofs is actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass. At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something important.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Some important points….
At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote:
In more than one place, Gale disagrees without saying why, at all, not even to specify what specifically is being disagreed with. That an intelligence higher than that of the individual exists? That it is drugged or asleep (i.e., not functioning with full capacity)? That it is (as if) having a bad dream (i.e., wars, seeming powerlessness, etc.)? That sometimes it is a nice dream? (all the beauty of collective action that we experience)?Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)
Freedom of speech is oppression if there is no freedom not to listen, not to be able to function without wading through what happens when millions of people have free speech rights in a forum. Example: many usenet newsgroups, which gradually became, if unmoderated, extremely difficult to use.TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes theother one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom ofselecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An exampleof such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
In another post I explain why a filtered transcript is important. If, to understand a decision made by those active at a certain level, I must wade through myriads of irrelevant posts, understanding becomes quite difficult. Yes, some kind of rating system might accomplish this, but if it is done automatically, under the hood, so to speak, it becomes vulnerable to corruption or systemic error. I prefer to make specific, known people — and chosen by proxy delegation — responsible for filtering. Because such a system is built from the bottom up, individuals do have access with whatever wacky or sound ideas they might generate. Low-level proxies might operate completely open forums for their clients, among other things. The DP system means that members of the organization, all of them who have chosen proxies and been accepted, have access to someone who is, presumably, better connected than they are. Acceptance of a proxy does signify willingness to consider input from the person, to at least read it. If I’m a low-level proxy and there is some person who writes compulsively, and it is too much for me, I can attempt to find a client or other member who is willing to at least look it over; that person becomes the direct proxy of the loquacious client. None of this need be a formal requirement. All that is needed at the formal level is a proxy list which includes three fields: member handle, designated proxy handle, acceptance. The rest is what can be expected to happen in an organization that actually starts using DP.
Note that it is not necessary that DP be formally accepted for decision-making. It would merely be more convenient; instead of recommending that clients vote in a certain way, or otherwise exercise their personal power (which in, for example, standard corporate shareholder rights, would mean naming a formal proxy according to the rules of the corporation, perhaps a top proxy from the DP network), the delegated proxies could vote directly. It’s a small difference.
Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus effectively use Delegable Proxy.
[on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and the exercise of power:]
I think the point was missed. The question is rhetorical; politics is, at best, not about how to “make things go our way,” but about finding courses of action which benefit the whole society. There is a subtle but important difference. It becomes obvious in societies which are badly polarized, where “winning” an election can be a total disaster if the minority is thus motivated to rebel. The voters (the majority, or the plurality in systems which allow a plurality winner, such as the U.S., which is even more dangerous) “got their way,” that is, they chose their favorite, someone who perhaps has a platform that appeals to them, or pretends to, which is too often the case, but they lost the ultimate goal, which is a functional society.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
Politics is about “making things go our way,” not my way. “Our way” means “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and FAs learn to respect the views of even a single member, continuing debate long beyond the point where a majority can be obtained. Without a means of concentrating debate into a small forum, this would be completely impractical in large organizations. Thus the importance of DP, which theoretically makes it possible to concentrate debate into a small group. not open to all, that is, not directly open. Indirectly, FA/DP is maximally open, it collectively attempts to listen to everyone.
And because it desires to do this, it cannot have an institutional bias, aside from that implied in the membership definition (and registration procedure). An FA/DP organization which is attempting to function as a communications network and consensus-generating mechanism for the whole society, thus, cannot take institutional positions. Once it does, it effectively excludes the minority.
This does not stop it from reporting poll results; and people may do what they wish with a result that is “196,495,782 members, voting directly or by proxy, support Measure A, and 37 members, similarly voting, were opposed.”
FA/DP organizations do make decisions, presumably by majority vote, regarding their own process. The protection against bias that can be introduced by this is the DP system, which makes it quite easy for a proxy to form a new organization that effectively becomes an opposing caucus, with an implied meta-organization which exists if any member from either caucus continues to participate in the other organizations. Only exclusion from self-defined membership blocks this, and thus an organization which is so exclusive cannot be more than a caucus within an open FA.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? Whatwe see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existingpolitical paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controlinginformation.
Good politics is. Power politics often is not….
FA/DP is not about the overthrow of the status quo, except to the degree that the status quo depends upon the lack of independent organization of the people. It does not attack existing institutions, period.
Now, this would be, in truth, a revolution. But, unless it is actively opposed with violence, a very gentle one. By definition, it solicits participation by all parties, including the “special interests,” including the oligarchs, and they lose nothing by participating, they only gain the opportunity to establish that their interest is actually the interest of society. If it is.
And most groups believe this, that their way is the best way…..
So, if that can make the World the better place, if thatis what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed itsefficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatibleto politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves,what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternativenetwork based on internet?.
I’d say new political paradigm! Internet is a tool, a device. The true problem is that people believe that they are powerless, so why bother organizing? Besides, every organization that they have known has ultimately failed them, has been corrupted. The entire intellectual class in Ethiopia supported the Mengistu Haile Maryam revolution. Which quickly became one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history, murdering all opposition. And charging the families of the murdered for the bullets before allowing them to pick up the bodies….
No, we don’t start with the exercise of power. We start with communication, with methods for seeking and finding consensus. This is, in my view, the only way to securely avoid those disasters.
One more thing. About networks. This is theproject pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if onesentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, heturns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers towork together or to support those with greater chance.
Yes. But this is generally based upon a particular platform. FA/DP is metaplatform.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeedin agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join mynetwork. And that is not so easy task.
Indeed, it is quite difficult. However, what is the standard of success? I consider my work successful over the last few years, but it started from nothing. Given that what I’m promoting is a wider understanding of certain concepts, this being the first step, I can see great progress. Delegable Proxy, for example, is now widely recognized among election methods experts as being an “ideal” system. They still think, mostly, that there is no way to get from here to there, because they still think in terms of official, legal systems, power structures. The FA concepts are much harder, they go quite against expectations.
Especially in the moment peopleunder pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So,what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he candelegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment?
He needs it, but he does not know that he needs it. He is, in Mark’s delicate language, a lemming. He is responsive to the opinions and views of those around him. Get enough people moving in this direction, he will join. Until then, he won’t give it the time of day.
Rationally, everyone should register at
http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki. What does it cost? The slogan is:
“Lift a finger, save the world.”
But most people won’t lift a finger. Why not?
I know why, and I also know how to move around this. But it’s a huge topic. It will take time, is the bottom line.
What is needed now is not for everyone to join. What is needed is for one more person to join, and to attempt to understand the concepts. We are at a point where each individual participant is worth a great deal.
As there are more people participating, more again will come. The goal at this point is for enough people to understand the FA/DP concepts that the probability of them being implemented in a “real” organization reaches significance. This could happen at any time. We are working on this, all of us, I’d say, but the inertia is tremendous.
Iunderstand that you have larger picture in your head, but that pictureis simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedurewithouth feeling a pulse of others.
I’m quite aware of the pulse. I’m not trying, at this time, to create a mass movement. I’m trying to create a small organization which can seed larger ones. It would be lovely to see any examples of DP in actual use. Demoex never really tried it sufficiently.
And as long as others did not feelthat pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofsis actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass.At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong orif I missed something important.
The problem at this point is not in convincing everyone. Indeed, I don’t want to convince anyone of anything, except that all this is worth examining. If it is wrong, how? Telling us would be a great public service!
What the problem is now is getting one more active member, someone interested in understanding the concepts and in doing what I’ve been doing: encouraging broader discussion and understanding. There is one, Jan Kok, you saw him here. With three, putting in even a few hours a week, we would have, I believe, the core, and growth would accelerate.
The solution in general is becoming supersaturated. The necessary understandings are beginning to appear everywhere. All it will take, I suspect, is a seed crystal and the whole picture will appear, quite rapidly.
But getting that crystal together is astonishingly difficult. If this were a standard political cause, it would be relatively easy. People get fired up about causes. And then they burn out….
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Lomax
On Monday 11 September 2006 04:36, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP,i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for"participatory?"TOP stands for Transparent Open Public.
In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to itsmembers, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
OK
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimatetransformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully openand transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately,as they see fit.
What do you mean by still function privately?
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it willbecome much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public,and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far moreefficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutuallybeneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and thepublic as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once theyare doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending onthe rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewardsinnovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., itissues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, Ithink that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
OK, this is a start. Do you think FA/DP could be further optimized through additional concepts (e.g. TOP, integral decision making process, fishnet organization etc.)?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Mark
On Sunday 10 September 2006 18:37, Mark wrote:
-M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on apiece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have furtherinput constraints on this algorithm.
Good, I’d love to take a look at it.
Great!mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document inwhich you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki wouldbe a nice place to publish it :-P-M: I’ll do that!
-M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints.Pimki is similar to a wiki,http://pimki.rubyforge.org/and has network graphing capabilityhttp://www.graphviz.org/This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchalcontrol.Is this a good idea?
Why not, looks neat to me ;-)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+0
New discussion
Answer
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?
<martinvaxjo@…> wrote:
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.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.
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.Well, everybody who has worked in a project knowsthatis a lie. You can start processes parallell. Theambition is more important here. If you areelectedyou 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?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.No, we use phpBB. As soon as a program exists withopen source code better than phpBB includingpriorityvoting and budget voting. We will use it andsupportthe 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.Stagnating from 30 to 9 when we decided to usemembersfee. I will now suggest that we take that partaway.Too few, and probably because of the fact that wehavea 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.
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.
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?Well, we would love such an attempt and theattention
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.
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!
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”?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.make them sign a legal document binding them tothe
peoples descisions or to leave or to paypersonallyfor the damage done.When you say democracy, you mean to decision makingsystem youpromote, right?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.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.
Though, what means this Gail? I do not get it?To believe it must be believable.Well, my dear fellow :-), I guess you did not readour
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 apolititan,organisation or a relative she trusts. Bullshit oragressive behaviour will be moderated and somepeoplewill naturally be excluded from democracyaccording torules set by the people themselves.OK. This is if/then/else answer.Payed Pete, will rat on spookey polititian Joewhopayed 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 faultyway.Response – abiliy. Think! :-) The persons who havetheability to respond. Polititians use these words tomake their salaries higher, but in real life theability to respond is often slim. The people areoftenmuch better. A clear example is the recent tsunamidisaster, where polititians acted like shy peopleinan eldery institution.puh…that is where my time ends.Anyway, if you are not part of the solution youarepart of the problem.With a positive, creative and open mind allproblemscan be solved.Yet, you need much faith also :-)I you do reply, Gail please cut out the essentilas!So let´s take off (maybe crash andlearn) and eventually will fly and even go to themoon!Absolutely!Gale
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
To keep thing short here:
Please answer as I do now…;
Most of us seesm to have been falling in numbers of interested.
OK, good to see that we are not alone with this problem!
The major reason for it I beleive is that progess is too slow.
People want to see some results, not just deabtes over and over again.
When it comes to the debate on how democracy should look like this is
one of the most overdiscussed area there is.
Many loses steam when some typical represantative politician is
interfering and the debate have to take 10 steps back just to explain
what’s a known fact to the current group.
During this interference a lot of energy is wasted and many just don’t
have enough left to continue afterwards.
To avoid this it is important to get enough momentum OR, to create
something on your own that is likely to be accepted by a larger group
later.
I beleive that what we are discussing here is such a large step from
todays politics that we can’t just expect more that a few to really
find interest in it.
It’s just too big of a step for them.
So, the logic conclusion is that we should be sorry if there are few of
us as long as w are making progress. It may take one year or 20, but
finally we would be ready to promote our more ready solution which
should be applicable on everydays poltics all over the world.
Once we are there, people can start use it and improve it further as
well as adpat is for their own needs.
For the reasons above I see this group top-politics as a way of
gathering enough interested people to get the important progress.
We have all proven a lot of patience so not so many of us should leave
hopefully.
We are all skilled debaters and should be able to cope about and
towards concensus.
If we can’t reach concensus we are willing to accept democratic
decisions as long as the results are not too far away from our final
intentions.
So, we need now to focus on the principles on how out proposed system
should look like.
Some part are there, AD, SD", Tiaktiv etc.
What can be used as is, what has to be modified?
Also remember that some parts may be used locally and some other
somewhere else.
This will be no problem if we moduluraze the system well.
I put forward again the best example in modern time, Linux!
Look how many functions there are, and look how new are evolving all
the time.
BR/
Mange
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hello Magnus.
Mange wrote:
To keep thing short here:Please answer as I do now…;Most of us seesm to have been falling in numbers of interested.OK, good to see that we are not alone with this problem!The major reason for it I beleive is that progess is too slow.People want to see some results, not just deabtes over and over again.When it comes to the debate on how democracy should look like this isone of the most overdiscussed area there is.Many loses steam when some typical represantative politician isinterfering and the debate have to take 10 steps back just to explainwhat’s a known fact to the current group.During this interference a lot of energy is wasted and many just don’thave enough left to continue afterwards.To avoid this it is important to get enough momentum OR, to createsomething on your own that is likely to be accepted by a larger grouplater.I beleive that what we are discussing here is such a large step fromtodays politics that we can’t just expect more that a few to reallyfind interest in it.It’s just too big of a step for them.So, we should make people interested in this stuff. But, what is that stuff we are talkng about what is the essence of it? Let me say my opinion. It is actually new political paradigm ,used to be called open politics, eventhough top politics seems to sound better due to its articualation.
What is essence of it in your opinion? Is that voting procedure? My personal opinion is that voting procedure by itself is just out come of completely new approach as long as todays procedures are probably non compatible (we can discuss concrete reasons for this assumption)
So, the logic conclusion is that we should be sorry if there are few ofus as long as w are making progress. It may take one year or 20, butfinally we would be ready to promote our more ready solution whichshould be applicable on everydays poltics all over the world.Once we are there, people can start use it and improve it further aswell as adpat is for their own needs.
Once :-)
For the reasons above I see this group top-politics as a way ofgathering enough interested people to get the important progress.We have all proven a lot of patience so not so many of us should leavehopefully.We are all skilled debaters and should be able to cope about andtowards concensus.If we can’t reach concensus we are willing to accept democraticdecisions as long as the results are not too far away from our finalintentions.So, we need now to focus on the principles on how out proposed systemshould look like.Some part are there, AD, SD", Tiaktiv etc.
You think strategy you are wokring on is the good one? But, do you have any other possible strategy on your mind?
In Tiaktiv, we are oriented towads promotion of basic principles that differ us from everybody else. TOP principles. We use interface (public forums, groups.. that link over 30 000 people) as our media of action. This media has completely different characteristics in contrary to conventional mass media and we learn to swim in that media, to articulate and respect its principles. I can notice that these forums are mayby not so direct such as tv, but its openess, possibility to see problem from all sides, having possibility to fight desnformation by concrete valid data, make these forums much more valid and thrust worthy in eyes of its users. This means that these forums are actual place of informirng and creating forum and indirectly public opinion.
We also promote this media among young politicians who want to differ, we teach them out of or experience about principles and ways of using these places most eficienty, we are creating new origin of public opinion that is due to its info superiority becoming openstanding trust worthy media that has grreat deal of objectivity in creating public opinion.
Those young politicians who are willng to use this media create relatively narrow but strong support of form members which is eventually enough to stat flying towards political relevance. These men create proper carma and use the way that can defend themself from public mass media lynh which is usual method of destroying oposition.
We are also discovering and promoting open organisation principles that need new voting proceducers that are compatbile to top principle and dynamic s of internet. Yet. I n this moment as said thing is that eventualy one young politician is willing to start new approach in politics, this makes voting procedure irrelevant in this moment.
Of course, let me say something more. Our origin vision was vision of Internet democracy you could already seen. This origin vision is open standing vision that by theoretical model is in no collision with our findings. Yet. We can notice that good visions do not mean anything if they are not obviously grounded and effective in Real time, not in some future.
That is the reason we actually give up from pretendous practically push of our vision in second, maybe even tird plan and making grounds of it vision obvious to everyone. Yet, that ground we are not making on theory, but in practice.
OK. These are my 2 cents about strategies and ways of our action in this moment.
What can be used as is, what has to be modified?Also remember that some parts may be used locally and some othersomewhere else.This will be no problem if we moduluraze the system well.I put forward again the best example in modern time, Linux!Look how many functions there are, and look how new are evolving allthe time.
Yet. Software has some big advantage. It is concrete and software develpers are concrete also. So, there is no need to discuss about thrust worthines, about theoretical models that might seem different in minds of each one, making them eventually hard to be a base of grouping, etc. Another thing is that we need to see who are actual users of the models we eventually develop? Are there actually any?
BTW, some people say that communism got down as long as its creators thougt that all people are like them. They did not have any clue about true relations making that system eventualyl collaps after sodomy it created.
To finish this reply with some off topic and blabish talk from me, let me ask you concrete things. What do you think it is a reason you move so slow? Is it people, or you? What can you do to be better, more efective? What are things you already tried and showed to be wrong? Do you hav any questions for me, eventually?
ATB,
Gale
ATB,
Gale
BR/Mange
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Gale,
Thanks for your long answer.
The essens:
Ofcourse it is not only a voting process. It’s about democracy in the
right and unfiltered way.
Without personal bindings and corruption,
Without quickies in the night (budget discussions…).
Without stupid media fooled to cover a stupid politician instead of
real political issues.
Without the old values from the class society.
Just with issue-politics.
And to you I would say, it is all not about the ultimate forum either.
My conclusion since day one (and nobody has been able to convince me of
being wrong( is that the changes neede are so big and so painful for
the power stuctures in place today that we can only rely on the people.
Why? Because they are the ones that suffer under the current system.
So, how to get the support from the people?
Well, to start with there must be a real and thruthworthy alternative,
there must be answers on how directdmocracy could work even in the
danger of an attack on a directdemocratic nation for instance.
To create the neccessary infrastucture over internet is needed, but so
is also the voting process and even the software.
Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopic
chance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for it
in any way for a parliament.
To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for a
SF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?
If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimate
infrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and take
power from the established power structures, am I right?
My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decided
later?
Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guess
that they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions of
what democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)
The reson of beeing slow:
The short answer for AD is: no finished software due to no skilled
programmer.
As long as this is failing, there is nothing to demonstrate! As simple
as that.
Reason for no programmer should not be my fault since the party was
founded by programmers…
Some reason for the programmers to leave might have been some personal
opinions which they didn’t want to abandon even if the majority wanted
so. But I don’t really think that’s the reason. Probably we have never
reached critical mass so the programers never felt inspired enough
(they have said to me that they are such a weird people so I couldn’t
beleive it..), and the most creative programmers never felt attracted
or never have seen us.
Potential users of a software:
Lots of them, all organisations not driven by corrupt politicians.
There are at least there directdemocratic partys in Sweden including AD
and two of them inside local governemt (communities).
They are currently using commercila software with blackbox voting.
This group.
Open source people.
What has been made wrong in AD?
Good question. If you not a part of the solution you might be part of
the problem…
Well, I see myself as a man with strong integrity, without need for
personal vendettas or campains.
This I (and the rest currently in the party) have survived from others
and it can be hopefully be handled better next time it occurs.
There must alway be a defense ready for infiltrators and lunatics.
Both we in AD and Mikael Nordfors(now member, former founder of the
voting software Vivarto,
http://vivarto.com/tiki-print.php?page=the+Vivarto+Story) ,have been
attacked from within by established politicians or supporters.
Attacks like that only make us stronger in the end.
And as long as we are soo few there is not enough facts to point out
any specific reason really for slow progress.
I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thats
why I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end before
everything else..
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Magnus! Sorry for not answering this mail. It came over my sight.
MG wrote:
Dear Gale,Thanks for your long answer.The essens:Ofcourse it is not only a voting process. It’s about democracy in theright and unfiltered way.Without personal bindings and corruption,Without quickies in the night (budget discussions…).Without stupid media fooled to cover a stupid politician instead ofreal political issues.Without the old values from the class society.Just with issue-politics.And to you I would say, it is all not about the ultimate forum either.My conclusion since day one (and nobody has been able to convince me ofbeing wrong( is that the changes neede are so big and so painful forthe power stuctures in place today that we can only rely on the people.Why? Because they are the ones that suffer under the current system.So, how to get the support from the people?
Yes. There are parts of establishment who benefit too much by this power disporportion. Parties, NGOs, academics, they are all on the position of the power thanks to good relationship to the structure. On that scale the only fight that is happening on the world of politics is the fight between the fractions tending to control more. Practivcally all other publicly exposed ones are playing their games and there is no process of democratisation in this story as long as these structures are closed and rigid by people and y ideas.
Well, to start with there must be a real and thruthworthy alternative,there must be answers on how directdmocracy could work even in thedanger of an attack on a directdemocratic nation for instance.
TOP politics (used to call it open politics) as new paradigm creates new power centeres. Open, transparent and public oriented. These power centers have an option to take over the power of todays political power centers thanks to the superiority of organsiations based on the new principles. Something like Mozilla vs. Explorer.
To create the neccessary infrastucture over internet is needed, but sois also the voting process and even the software.
What I see is to articualte exact idea /not even set of ideas!/ we stand for and to create world consolidation based on that something like GNU and free software foundation. I supose that is actually freedom of information. Something todays hypocritical power centers who have no true relationship to the people, but use them as consumers of their lie factory can not do, as long as freedom of info eliminates difference between declarative and true attitudes. Those who play game of todays politicians, have no chance in TOP. We do have if we learn to use it.
Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopicchance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for itin any way for a parliament.
What I see is common political party who deals with best buy political problems getting majority. People in general need product, not essence. Yet, it is the essence that makes true difference and workd good in long term investment. But people, I do not expect from the people to understand completely what does new aproach actually mean.
So, there is no need for creating great political model, as long as political models can be created by ad hoc principles thanks to dynamics of internet. All we need in that moment is power to make those who are not satisfied acknowledge that. And it is not a matter of mere numbers, as long as I can guarantee you that if we won 50%+1 and tried to start great political reform, if those who do not like that reform found out they could eliminate us, they would do it. Coup is regular mechanism to eliminate it. So, it is only the matter of power. Of course, is you are doing shitty thing power ratio will hit you back pretty soon, so it does not worth too much to play only power, no rightness game
To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for aSF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?
I would not.
If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimateinfrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and takepower from the established power structures, am I right?
We do not need ultimate infrastucture to promote TOP. We can do it right now and we are doing it right now. Of course, documentation system, forums that enable openness, transparency and equality are needed as long as todays forums do not do such thing and so on. Yet, we do not need all these tools to start doing what we do. And we have started doing it with no ultimate software. It is the idea that matters, the software is only support.
My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decidedlater?
There are many ways, yet some people say as granted that today political system is based on media wars. And who win the media war, takes all. Internet as part of media is not direct and does not penetrates as TV does, yet it is superior as long as people trust internet related things basedon TOP more than what they see on TV thanks to possibilitiy to get familiar to other side making them feel objective. And people like objecitivy as long as objectivity gives them certainty whic is existential need in every single being. This all means that we can win wars over TV, and TV can not win war over us. It is only matter of time since the whole power gets transfered to TOP.
Talking about exact manners, there are many, yet political party and existing legitimated political process is natural way of getting to rule position.
Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guessthat they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions ofwhat democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)
I agree. There is no too much need to do this stuff as long as abstract concepts connected to other abstract concepts lacking in exact ground do not help us move on. This is the ground we need and it is the ground that help us see if we share basic thoughts that can create stretegic partnerships.
The reson of beeing slow:The short answer for AD is: no finished software due to no skilledprogrammer.As long as this is failing, there is nothing to demonstrate! As simpleas that.Reason for no programmer should not be my fault since the party wasfounded by programmers…Some reason for the programmers to leave might have been some personalopinions which they didn’t want to abandon even if the majority wantedso. But I don’t really think that’s the reason. Probably we have neverreached critical mass so the programers never felt inspired enough(they have said to me that they are such a weird people so I couldn’tbeleive it..), and the most creative programmers never felt attractedor never have seen us.
We had a pretty big problems with programers too. Yet, now I understand them. 4 years ago I felt as I touched God. And now I see than I actually knew nothing. So, from my perspective everyone should give his 200% and everything is going to get right.
4 years later I understand that it is the programer who matters, not me. If programer is going to create the software. It is up to me to get interest some programr to create that software. I failed in that mission. Now, Tiaktiv by exact deeds is showing what we are doing, making people easier to understand our ideas.
So, the whole point is that it does not matter what I think about something, it matters what other think about it. If otehr people are assured this is great thing, I am becoming relevant. If not, than I am just BS, whatever I think about it.
This is actually the thing I tried to explain to Mark as long as it seems to me that he is still selfreferencing guy on his mission, which leads nowhere. It took me about 2-3 years to realise that and now we can start doing smart things. I am that this group gathers several people who have passed their “political puberty”.
Potential users of a software:Lots of them, all organisations not driven by corrupt politicians.There are at least there directdemocratic partys in Sweden including ADand two of them inside local governemt (communities).They are currently using commercila software with blackbox voting.This group.Open source people.What has been made wrong in AD?Good question. If you not a part of the solution you might be part ofthe problem…Well, I see myself as a man with strong integrity, without need forpersonal vendettas or campains.This I (and the rest currently in the party) have survived from othersand it can be hopefully be handled better next time it occurs.There must alway be a defense ready for infiltrators and lunatics.
Do not worry about lunatics. We are not interesting to them right now. Infiltrators, that is another story.
Both we in AD and Mikael Nordfors(now member, former founder of thevoting software Vivarto,http://vivarto.com/tiki-print.php?page=the+Vivarto+Story) ,have beenattacked from within by established politicians or supporters.Attacks like that only make us stronger in the end.And as long as we are soo few there is not enough facts to point outany specific reason really for slow progress.I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thatswhy I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end beforeeverything else..
That is possible. We are based on internet. Internet has no boundaries. That is the strong point of the internet. We should use it in our advantage.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Gale,
Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopicchance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for itin any way for a parliament.
What I see is common political party who deals with best buy political problems getting majority. People in general need product, not essence.
Yet, it is the essence that makes true difference and workd good in long term investment. But people, I do not expect from the people to understand completely what does new aproach actually mean.
So, there is no need for creating great political model, as long as political models can be created by ad hoc principles thanks to dynamics
of internet. All we need in that moment is power to make those who are
not satisfied acknowledge that. And it is not a matter of mere numbers,
as long as I can guarantee you that if we won 50%+1 and tried to start great political reform, if those who do not like that reform found out they could eliminate us, they would do it. Coup is regular mechanism to
eliminate it. So, it is only the matter of power. Of course, is you are
doing shitty thing power ratio will hit you back pretty soon, so it does not worth too much to play only power, no rightness game
To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for aSF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?
I would not.
-Your last answer is contradictionary. You would not vote. I would not
either. So why should we care?
No vote, no power within years.
So, there you have reason for lack of interest.
We do not need ultimate infrastucture to promote TOP. We can do it
right now and we are doing it right now. Of course, documentation system, forums that enable openness, transparency and equality are needed as long as todays forums do not do such thing and so on. Yet, we
do not need all these tools …
-Without the tools you don’t even give people the possibility to
evaluate them. They are wating for that.
They might find the visions greta but need something to relate to and
to show others that is not only SF.
…this all means that we can win wars over TV, and TV can not win war over us. It
is only matter of time since the whole power gets transfered to TOP.
-In SF yes, in real life, probably no. At least not in our life time.
Progress will be too slow and people sees that.
So they go and watch TV instead.
Talking about exact manners, there are many, yet political party and
existing legitimated political process is natural way of getting to rule position.
-Yes, I would say almost the only one. In enough open and transparanet countries this would work! And thats why we need all the tools, now.
Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guessthat they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions ofwhat democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)
I agree. There is no too much need to do this stuff as long as abstract
concepts connected to other abstract concepts lacking in exact ground do not help us move on. This is the ground we need and it is the ground
that help us see if we share basic thoughts that can create stretegic partnerships.
-Now we’re talking!
4 years later I understand that it is the programer who matters, not
me. If programer is going to create the software. It is up to me to get
interest some programr to create that software. I failed in that mission. Now, Tiaktiv by exact deeds is showing what we are doing, making people easier to understand our ideas.
-In the case of new democray system, the programmers are the ones to feed and keep happy, no wuestion about it.
So, the whole point is that it does not matter what I think about something, it matters what other think about it. If otehr people are assured this is great thing, I am becoming relevant. If not, than I am just BS, whatever I think about it.
-It’s all about attracting more and more. But you have to start with a magnet..
This is actually the thing I tried to explain to Mark as long as it seems to me that he is still selfreferencing guy on his mission, which leads nowhere. It took me about 2-3 years to realise that and now we can start doing smart things. I am that this group gathers several people who have passed their “political puberty”.
-So true…
I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thatswhy I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end beforeeverything else..
That is possible. We are based on internet. Internet has no boundaries.
That is the strong point of the internet. We should use it in our advantage.
So here my vison has been right for at least three years..;)
BR/
Magnus
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Magnus
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 01:03, MG wrote:
If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimateinfrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and takepower from the established power structures, am I right?My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decidedlater?
;-) In the same manner Linux takes power from Microsoft and other similar
organizations. Through participation, involvement and fun of use ;-)
But I do agree to the rest of the posting.
Best regards
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decidedlater?
;-) In the same manner Linux takes power from Microsoft and other
similar
organizations. Through participation, involvement and fun of use ;-)
-Yes, but think of it, would Linux be of any interest before the first
alfa version ever where available and found some users seeing it’s
potential?
If Linus would have been debating over internet or mail on how the
ultimate operative system should be designed without showing some
programming on his own or by some other programmer to show others, he
would probably be debating even today..
It’s all about ability to relate and to give feedback in order to
develop better and better solutions.
You can’t talk yourself to the moon.
BR/
Magnus
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Magnus
This is why I do not engage such discusion since it’s highly unproductive. Let’s try to create a system with various concepts allowed (e.g. as options a user can choose from). In this way different concepts can be tested, evaluated and improved.
I allready agreed to implement the system in Ruby on Rails (as Emmanuel would like it to be). So it depends on him now if he wants to engage into this implementation.
Since I studied Information and Organization Systems I know a pretty good framework for integration of programmers and non-programmers in a software engineering project. It’s called strategic planning of information systems. It’s starts of with some charts which are understandable to the end-user (non-programmer). From this charts the programmers can later generate the architecture of the system and thus implement it. If there’s interest we could go through this procedure (we allready did this in TiAktiv), so everyone could be involved in in the system design.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 02:46:50AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
I allready agreed to implement the system in Ruby on Rails (as Emmanuel would like it to be). So it depends on him now if he wants to engage into this implementation.Great, technologically wise, it is a great tool.
Since I studied Information and Organization Systems I know a pretty good framework for integration of programmers and non-programmers in a software engineering project. It’s called strategic planning of information systems. It’s starts of with some charts which are understandable to the end-user (non-programmer). From this charts the programmers can later generate the architecture of the system and thus implement it. If there’s interest we could go through this procedure (we allready did this in TiAktiv), so everyone could be involved in in the system design.
I’m interested in that methodology, any doc about it?
What would you recommend at this stage of the project?
Personally I would tend to speak about features, general concepts. From it we can generate the “question” to which this project would be the “answer”.
Questions would go like:
Then I would devise modules, each one concentrating on one part. Ideally those modules would directly be translated into database structures, programming constructs and web pages.
For example:
echarp
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
Please find the paper about SPIS attached. But be aware that it is probable a little bit hard to read and needs some extra knowledge to understand. And, also I have to mention that this is the full procedure, but we only need to use 5 or less methods described; since this procedure is intended for accurate information systems for big corporations and their BPR. We only need a part of it.
Your questions are good and should be examined!
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+0
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
A = A* /(dxZ)
Any clean examples?
“Everybody voting yes on the first day”, what happens?
“Everybody voting yes on the first day, then half changing their mind on the second day and voting no”?
Is there no other way to describe “d” but as a constant. Does it correlate with the number of days it would require for a proposal to be accepted if everybody voted yes? (A time buffer of sorts)
Or “d” is a threshold above which should reach the number of “yes” minus the number of “no” divided by the total population?
(yes-no)/population > d => proposition accepted.
Personally I have no troubles with a threshold but I find arbitrary “constants” rather unsettling :)
If d is set at 7, and 1/7th of the population votes “yes” on the first day while nobody votes “no”, will the proposal get passed after 7 days?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
No, “d” is the "democarcy constant.
If it’s 7, and all votes, say 100 persons, yes the first day, second
day A* will be calculated:
A* = M* + A
= 100 + 0 = 100
And then A = A* /(dxZ) = 100 / (7 × 100 ) = 100/700 = 1/7
As you conclude, after 7 identical calcultations, A* = 7/7 = +1 , and
the proposal is approved after 7 days.
If the majority would switch, though, a new 7 day minimum period would
start.
The good thing with “d” is that is can be used to tune the speed of the system in relation to how many of the total number of voters that’s normally attend the votings.
In smaller organizations maybe there have to be a quicker flow, than in
a big party running a country.
AD has previously manually adopted the algo and used 7 as factor for
“d” with good results.
With more active members and more votes to work with, we probably would
change to 30 or 60.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?
“d” and “t” which are both time periods.
In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.
“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for a proposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What do you think?
I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?
For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffers at its center because you consider time periods a critical political factor?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
echarp skrev:
Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?
-Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact. If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24 hours.
In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.-Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.
“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?
-Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.
I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?
-Please read our manifesto.
The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relation
to how many actually are voting for or against.
The idea is to be able to sort out those lunie-proposals or proposals
that cannot attract large enough parts of the electors list.
This is important both to the individual citizen but also to the all
other players in todays political life.
The burden of having to constantly check that no unwanted proposals are
voted in is by the AD-algo eased a lot since there will be filtering on
this accumulated support.
(And of course also on other things such as area of interest, field or
author or wahtever)
By the AD-algo all users have only to concentrate on the proposals that
are close to be over (with a high accumulated support).
In case of an important issue but too slow progress in the vote (due to too few voting on it), the author, or anyone that finds the issue important, can start to build opinion if there are valid arguments. In case of a too narrow issue, maybe a road lightning issue in a village that someone puts up as a proposal in a countrys general parliament, the conclusion is to take the issue to the more appropriate level, such as the county or city parliament. (Just as today) I say parliament but this is meant inside the AD-party in the case of the AD strategy to get elected in all existing parliaments and from within have this own DD way of ruling. (One day maybe some or all parties will stop their traditional work and switch over to the AD-algo..)
As you also conclude, the time factor itself has also a buffer effect.
Many DD sceptics are constantly complaining that DD on the internet
will lead to hour democracy where all sorts of non-democratic decisions
can be taken before even media or more than a few of the voters have
seen it at all.
All this is solved by the AD-algo since all interested and media will
be able to easily sort out the real threats to socitey and our
democracy and to highlight it if things seems to go an unwanted way.
When people sees these highlights they can go in and vote against such
proposals and also raise their voice and build even more opinion
against the proposal.
(The rest of the narrow/stupid proposals can be lying for years adn
will not bother anyone at all)
So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it for filtration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.
BR/
Magnus
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:05:35AM -0000, MG wrote:
echarp skrev:Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some kind of integral over time?Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?-Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact.If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24hours.In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.-Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.
OK, I think I have some grasp of what you have in mind. It seems to be what I’m designing into parlement, but for the “t” constant (t being the period of time between each iteration).“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?-Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.
Without t, it means participants can simply vote +1/0/-1, when the sum of those votes gets above a given threshold (1/d in other terms), then the proposal is accepted.
(number of yes – number of no)/(number of participants) > 1/d
I have.I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?-Please read our manifesto.
Is t only there to generate a time buffer?
Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.
What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it less appropriate? Less legitimate?
The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relationto how many actually are voting for or against….So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it forfiltration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.
This is what any democratic system would hopefully do :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?
It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but on the contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of this world, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such as the finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (or French or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So I don’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant an issue with actually writing the code for it?
This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Best regards,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:58:57PM -0000, Serge wrote:
The code will be slightly complex, but it will be even more difficult to manage, because time will be an important part of the process.Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but onthe contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of thisworld, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such asthe finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (orFrench or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So Idon’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant anissue with actually writing the code for it?
For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply relaunch it a few hours later.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:40:56AM -0000, MG wrote:
I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,wrench or pencil.But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they sonaturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.I’m also an engineer, and I did manage to understand the Navier Stokes equations at one time :) But an equation with 5 elements, 2 of which are constants with no direct relation with reality, seems complex to understand.
(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically “resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
I totally agree.Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implementdelegable proxy.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous votingwould be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a finalproposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classicformulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind ofrange voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuousvoting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply
relaunch it a few hours later.
-Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the original time for summation and redo the division. >(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
-To me too.
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a
threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
-Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes if negative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.
It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we then repeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times of adding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then we have 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
-But then there need to be a certain margin, and this migth never occur.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically
“resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
-Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those
voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (which
can be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takes
time.
In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginning
with well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitary
arguments of other unfair opinions.
One could also thing of a function where you would be able to filter on
majority switches due to this.
Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
-Exactly, this is a problem so AD want to keep open the possibility to put up your own proposals without limits.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simplyrelaunch it a few hours later.Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.
This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation.
And it has to be done for all proposals.
A proposal would be accepted if:Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as athreshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated(yes-no)?Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
Or, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or threshold
Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes ifnegative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.356., making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we thenrepeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times ofadding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then wehave 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0Is that “reset” a required part of your system?This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically"resets" the left part of the equation.Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is itnot logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes soradically takes more time to be approved or refused?Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being thevalid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have
This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation. And it has to be done for all proposals.
-Well, if the system goes down so no calculation can be made, the
possibility to vote should also go down?
But if not, it is only reuse the day before value and send out a
message to re-vote.
But you could also wait to next day and use the latest ballots from all
if they are existent.
(If so, there could be a rule that the vote is proplonged with the time
the sytem has been down.)
The same could happen to any internet based voting system, that it
breaks down.
-Sorry for my writing about 60%, it should only be: The formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZWell, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
A proposal would be accepted if:
A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ? d a fraction of the total population
Or, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or threshold
-Maybe…I’m not a matemathician…what is your angle?
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m
not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
-The only complex part as I see it, is how thing are affected in the case thats normal; not all are voting yes, but only say 54%. In this case the accumulation to A* will go slower. The day when there is exactly 54% yes-votes and 46% no, the addition to A will be exactly 54% of the addition if we had 100% yes votes, meaning a slower progress.
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0-I think so yes..
Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
Is that “reset” a required part of your system?
-Sorry for another error of mine…
It’s the other way around, the accumulated support should be set to
zero in order to avoid that the voting time streches out too much just
because there is a switch of majority..
It can be díscussed if this resetting is needed but for practical
reasons we think it’s a good feature.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters and
majority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to
51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+0
Hey,
About recalculations, couldn’t a duplication step be included ahead of the counting? This would ensure a snapshot of the voting position remains available for reference should a malfunction / delay occur.
About formulas and making d and the process of accumulation over time more intellegible, if I get this right, the basic logic is that for proposals with a high proportion of the population voting and agreeing, a proposal can be passed fairly quickly. Equally, if not many people are voting or agreeing, then a proposal will drag on.
Explaining this in layman’s terms therefore seems pretty straightforward. You could define d=7 as corresponding to a period of one week for ratification of a vote if 100% of the population votes in favour. Accordingly, as the proportion of participation / support drops, the time for ratification increases in proportion, which ensures no loonie proposal can be passed discreetly and quickly without proper participation and scrutiny. That would probably make it more understandable than calling it a democratic constant.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters andmajority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.
In regards to close calls without a clear majority, wouldn’t it actually make sense for these to drag on until a proposal is satisfactory enough for a larger support to gather and tip the balance?
Regards,
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Echarp, Serge:
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some
kind of integral over time?
-I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,
wrench or pencil.
But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.
Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they so
naturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,
which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.
This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a
system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
-We have used in manually before the PHPbb-time. (Now we just have
simple majority over one month of voting period.)
And we have tested a system where the algo was implemented.
Sorry to say, the programmer got a job and felt tired..He aslo needed
feed back from other non existent programmers.
Currently we try to get the programming going by anyone interested.
What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Serge:-Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist
issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just
as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
-Couldn’t have put it better myself!!
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting
would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final
proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
-The most effective way once the system in place for governmental use
is to run it on relativley “ready” proposals.
This will probably be the only way of getting the proposals voted upon
in reasonable volumes.
So we envison use of document evolution, where a wiki could be used for
democratic version handling.
When more or less a consensus is reached about a proposal worked out by
a number of engaged citizens, the document is turned into a proposal to
vote for.
In this way time is won since there are much debate already written,
possible to read and comment by all voters not been engaded before.
But also the plain and sinple proposal from the little man should have
a chance.
So it will be up to the oroginator of a proposal to decide whether he
wants to engage more than himself in the work of writing good
proposals.
Some will, some not, and evolution will make all proposals better and
better until they finally can be voted upon within a reasonable amount
of days.
(If you feel frustrated because of slow progress of your vote, you
either try to raise more opinion, or rewrite you proposal so it can
attract more.)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
+0
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the public.
BTW, why did you send it, actually? Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
G: Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
M: :)
G: It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the
public. BTW, why did you send it, actually?
-M: I like it because it seems SD2 compatible.(Almost any system can work under SD2, but Smartocracy seems to seemlessly be integratable with SD2 methods and philosophy.)
G: Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions? ATB; Gale
-M: Its not a complete system. Whenever a decision is made, a new trust network is formed – this creates only a temporary trust-nucleus.
By contrast, if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. This body would also oversee the physical implimentation and upgrades of the Smartocracy system.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs. I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
illegale wrote:
G: Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs.-M: Same and different – the mix would differ based on the voter turnout.
G: I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one. ATB, Gale
-M: OK, agreed and understood.
I will also add that SD2-based general rank would be good for organizing an administrative hierarchy.
So SD2 would be ‘above’ and ‘below’ a Smartocracy system.
Cool? Comments anyone?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
It might be, for an example for selection of top
judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing
to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a
moment we do not have event network to make it.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
illegale wrote:
G: It might be, for an example for selection of top judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it. ATB, Gale
Name [_______________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: [___________________________] [________________________________________________________]
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]
Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): [____________________________________________]
Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a
candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active
voter on the issue.
The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
M: Screenshot:
-—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Name [_______________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: [___________________________] [________________________________________________________]
How many people do you want to be in the trustee board? 1[ ], 3[ ], or 5[ ]? (Chaired by those with the highest general rank.)
Issue XYZ
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]
Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): [____________________________________________]
Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.
The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
G: Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it? ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy seems like the best current operational model, which can be improved with SD2 and TOP.
So I am not proposing it for TOP specificly.
I am proposing it as an improvement for Smartocracy.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?
It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects.
So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
illegale wrote:
G: Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?-M: You? I would like to give Karl and Markus time to comment.
G: It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects. So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice. ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy is the most promising thing that I have seen, and I want to give it a chance.(If few/no one here is interested, this is then revealing about the group.)
And it is advanced enough where few modifications by an INDIVIDUAL could yield a distinct program.
And I just e-mailed them and told them that I want access to their site
and software.
Hopefully they will be responsive.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.
We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions, that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but with strategies.
I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so as long as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one of actual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.
Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you find something promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
illegale wrote:
There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions,that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but withstrategies. I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so aslong as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one ofactual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you findsomething promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.ATB, Gale-M: How about this?:
A political party organized with SD2-Smartocracy.
People would choose those they trust the most as general trustees, and they would choose the most competent people for specific issues.
It could be global scale or it could be for a village, or any scale
inbetween.
And since its built with Ruby on Rails, it is on the most versitile and
user friendly OpenSource platform that I am aware of.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
From: http://smartocracy.net/
-————————————————————————————————————————-
[…]
Each participant gets an equal number of votes (initially 10) for each
decision to be made, to be exercised not by them but by their proxies.
That simple change, from voting to delegating your vote, creates
meritocracy in an equitable, natural way. The most highly respected
participants are by definition on more people’s lists.
Any unexercised votes (e.g. if a participant doesn’t have time or
doesn’t feel qualified) cascade to the proxies of the non-voter, until
they hit an actual voter, who exercises them all.[…]
-—————————————————————————————————————————-
-M: People, sounds like Emmanuel’s accumulative delegable proxy system. I also think that they are using PageRank like I told Emmanuel that he needed to.
Emmanuel, I told you so. :-P
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Markus,
How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby
on Rails?:
http://smartocracy.net/
The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.
(Not directly related, and to continue from above, I said:)
-M: if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the rightquestions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. […]
-M: To add, SD2-director choices could be the voters’ default delegates
on issues.
This one point alone would seemlessly integrate SD2 with Smartocracy.
This integration alone would satisfy me(a complete system, not just an umbrella(SD2 ideally is an umbrella, but could be used alone)) but an idea that I would add would be default SD2 reps – an indescisive voter would be made SD2 compliant(therefore could become a rep) by sending voting power to gaps in the rank distribution curve.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
M: Markus, How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby
on Rails?: http://smartocracy.net/ The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.
-M: Markus, disregard. This site is written with ‘Typo’, which appears to be a Ruby on Rails blogging implimentation.
But I am still trying to find the Smartocracy software to download.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Here are more thesis papers:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf
-——————————————————————————————————————
Simulating Network Influence Algorithms Using
Particle-Swarms: PageRank and PageRank-Priors
Marko A. Rodriguez Johan Bollen
Abstract
A particle-swarm is a set of indivisible processing elements that
traverse a network in order to perform a distributed function. This
paper will describe a particular implementation of a particle-swarm
that can simulate the behavior of the popular PageRank algorithm in
both its global-rank and relative-rank incarnations. PageRank is
compared against the particleswarm method on artificially generated
scale-free networks of 1,000 nodes constructed using a common gamma
value, = 2.5. The running time of the particle-swarm algorithm is O(|P|
+ |P|t) where |P| is the size of the particle population and t is the
number of particle propagation iterations. The particle-swarm method is
shown to be useful due to its ease of extension and running time.
-—————————————————————————————————————-
M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-—————————————————————————————-
Advances Towards a
Societal-Scale Decision-Support System
Marko Antonio Rodriguez
ABSTRACT
Collective intelligence has been defined as the ability of a group to
provide more effective solutions to problems than could be otherwise
provided by any of its individual members working alone. Social
structures are the means by which humans are able to synergistically
combine their efforts to provide high quality solutions to the problems
facing the group. Over time, these structures have grown in scale and
complexity to encompass political institutions that span vast
landscapes of heterogeneous individuals to militaristic forms capable
of orchestrating effective large-scale behavioral feats. With computer
and network technologies, the potential for more advanced
societal-scale information-processing systems is now possible such that
a general-purpose societal-scale decision-support system may begin to
be
envisioned. Unlike typical group decision-support research, a
societal-scale system is faced with both a heterogeneous user
population and problem-space. In designing such a system it is
important to understand how the ’collective’s mind’ is modeled
via a shared mental map of the group and how the ’collective’s
mindset’ is maintained over fluctuating participation levels of its
constituent members. Methods in both
problem-space partitioning and group preference modeling are presented
within a theoretical and design framework to further the potential
development of a societal-scale decision-support system capable of
providing synergistically derived solutions to any representable
problem. In concert, all of these ideas provide the foundation for the
implementation of societal-scale decision-making system in a real-world
context.
-————————————————————————————————————————-
M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf
-—————————————————————————————————————————-
Advances towards a General-Purpose Societal-Scale
Human-Collective Problem-Solving Engine
Published in the International Conference on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics Proceedings, IEEE SMC, 2004
Published in the 23rd European Annual Conference on Human Decision
Making and Manual Control Proceedings, 2004
Marko A. Rodriguez
Computer Science Department
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A
okram@soe.ucsc.edu
Abstract – Human collective intelligence has proved
itself as an important factor in a society’s ability to
accomplish large-scale behavioral feats. As societies
have grown in population-size, individuals have seen a
decrease in their ability to actively participate in the
problem-solving processes of the group. Representative
decision-making structures have been used as a modern
solution to society’s inadequate information-processing
infrastructure. With computer and network technologies
being further embedded within the fabric of society, the
implementation of a general-purpose societal-scale
human-collective problem-solving engine is envisioned
as a means of furthering the collective-intelligence
potential of society. This paper provides both a novel
framework for creating collective intelligence systems
and a method for implementing a representative and
expertise system based on social-network theory.
-———————————————————————————————————————————
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss, we have limited amount of time..
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss,we have limited amount of time.-M: They are obviously supporters of RD. Find where thay are critical of DD, and we can discuss that.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf
-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in the internet?
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are
participating, the decision errors are zero.
And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power.
Can’t argue with that either.
What are you takling about???
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf
-Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
All I see in these thesises is that the current system with
representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual
level is better.
Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static.
No news here.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking inthe internet?http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf-M: No, its not PageRanking the internet, its PageRanking human networks.
mG: -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero. And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either. What are you takling about???
-M: Marko Rodriguez(the writer) is a participant on Smartocracy. As soon as I get admission to the group, I will be challenging him on this point. He is a techie who doesn’t understand republicanism.
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdfmG: -Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
-M: Because its not DD, its RD.
mG: All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better. Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.
-M: Yes, SD2-Smartocracy would be participatory.
Since leaders/representitives are needed even in a DD system, the only difference here is in the centrality algorithm of choice.(I said from the begining that the centrality algoritm is the main issue.)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lot
like AD. Point.
Let us know your success with Rodriquez…
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lotlike AD. Point.-M: ‘looks a lot like AD’ – vague. Parlement/EC-D looks a lot like AD.
So? Now lets talk about important details:
Initally, Smartocracy only selected general reps with PageRank.(like
SD2)
Then it was changed to have specific issues with reps.
My proposed SD2-Smartocracy would have both, with even a DD-like input
option.
Well? Do you like this?
mG: Let us know your success with Rodriquez…
-M: OK.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
-M: They are obviously supportes of RD.
Find where they are critical of DD.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting to wiki in order to create nice base for such projects?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
illegale wrote:
Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting towiki in order to create nice base for such projects? ATB, Gale-M: OK, unless someone posts thes articles there first.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added somemore icons..Screenshot avaible below.https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.PetherHey Peter!
Do you have public filters in your software integrated?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hi Gale,
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:Do you have public filters in your software integrated?Not sure what you mean with public filters, but don’t have any filters implemented except security filters
Only admin screens an a few others that will be protected by security.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
So, how are you going to enable transparent communication on the larger scales with no filters? Or you base your software on top-down hierarchy?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
So what do you mean with filters ? Still don’t understand your question.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
I assume your software is developed for large organizations with hundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up, grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hoc group decision which is possible thanks to internet.
OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not important ones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard to diminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain? If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had in mind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if these questions are too abstract, we could start in that way?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
I assume your software is developed for large organizations withhundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up,grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hocgroup decision which is possible thanks to internet.
It’s developed almost purely as a propaganda project with the main objective to increase political awareness and increase survelliance of existing politicians.
OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not importantones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard todiminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain?If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
I currently don’t have any issues like the ones you describe above, normally I prefer to solve problems when I actually got them. But would be interesting to know how filters would solve this problem ?
I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had inmind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if thesequestions are too abstract, we could start in that way?
A paradigm shift to some sort of direct democracy, and I belive that a portal for political parties that can lets them make decisions online can result in many different poltical models.
Kind regards
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
At 09:34 AM 12/20/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
Obviously, you don’t, that is, if everyone can present everyone else with a message, and the group is large enough, everyone is overwhelmed with traffic.
There are obvious solutions in common use, but we think that it is very important to develop solutions that don’t depend so much on a benevolent dictator, i.e., a group moderator.
Moderators there will be, but, as it is stated in the AA Traditions, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” If the whole group could walk and quickly reassemble, a rogue moderator would do no harm.
So we envision hierarchies of lists, if it is mailing lists we are talking about.
There are base lists, with relatively few subscribers, few enough that traffic does not overwhelm subscribers. These base lists may be moderated by proxies; there would be many of them in a large organization. Essentially, you can name a proxy and the proxy admits you to his or her list. And maybe even to a list above that, i.e., the list of your proxy’s proxy. This latter list you may read, but you don’t have the right, necessarily, to post to it without approval.
There is a top level list in an organization. Actually, there can be more than one, but I won’t go into that complication. A top level list would typically be open for subscription by any member of the organization. It may conduct polls and any member may vote in them. But the list is moderated; the only people who can post without moderation are high-level proxies, proxies representing a certain minimum number of members, directly or indirectly. There may also be other list members who may post, having been granted the privilege by vote, without being high-level proxies.
The point is that this high-level list is rather closely moderated. If members with posting privileges abuse them, any member who likewise has such privileges may object. Standard Robert’s Rules meeting process has procedures for this…. and members can lose their privileges; they can lose them administratively (i.e., as a decision ad-hoc by a moderator) and it remains democratic if they have the right of appeal. Appeal is to the whole “meeting,” but it might be on a separate list maintained for that purpose. Generally, if the organization is TOP, members would know if censorship was going on. It is not censorship, per se, which is the problem, it is hidden censorship, censorship without due process.
Standard democratic process exists for all this; the trick is to make that process scalable; and delegable proxy is the only solution I’ve seen which does not involve excluding large groups of people from participation and from representation. In theory. We have not seen large-scale DP yet. Soon, hopefully!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Very interesting, Gordan!
I think the same story could occur anywhere in the “free” world in
fact.
And it puts really the finger on how powerful a TOP-certified
forum/organization can be.
And how endangered some establishments must feel..
Thanks for the encouraging words!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer
Hey Magnus!
There have been many more campaigns to put Internet under control over these days, yet, I havent noticed such effective response of the users to keep it free.
It is really encouraging moment, indeed.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+0
New discussion
Answer