[pp.int.general] liquidfeedback myths? /was Re: LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?

Cal. peppecal at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 17:26:08 CEST 2014

On 27 April 2014 17:02, carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> wrote:
> I'll skip the irrelevant parts (still not enough, sorry).
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Cal. wrote:
>> The electorate deserves? It's not you who decide what the electorate
>> deserves. They decide by themselves in a periodic event called
>> "elections."
> We once upon a time voted in favor of a principle called transparency.
> If you prefer an intransparent party, there is a broad choice.

You once called "vogonism" this stuff.

The very same principle that makes difficult to bribe all party
members, makes very difficult to point their conflicting interests.
It's not transparency. That is why you should have transparent
decisions, not transparent people.

>> Whatever. You are focusing on people instead of decisions. A good
>> decision should stand up on its own. What are you fearing, with this
>> enormous authority principle appeal?
> It's easy to say wise sounding words. It's populism at work. You
> are claiming that a good proposal needs no social structure of
> supporters. That is a naive ideal that no tool or democratic
> model is capable of implementing.

There is a democratic tool called "brain." It is the only democratic
tool capable of that. Proposals should be independent of their

> So please stay on the grounds
> of the least worse options that we have - not illusionary and
> unscientific propositions which are just populistic.

You throw "unscientific" like it has no meaning. Are you saying that
mine is a non-falsifiable statement?

> Stop bashing, start proposing.

Propaganda. when I propose, assorted populists make it meaningless.
Like some people who responds in this list, flooding a previously
interesting and lovely discussion with propaganda.

> Go back to page #1 explaining how liquid democracy is less worse than other
> forms of democracy. You will always be able to dissect things I say if you
> pretend the other parts of the reasoning weren't there.

less worse? it brings straight to oligarchy by demotivating
minorities, who are just not heard.

>> and solely propaganda, is that LIQUID FEEDBACK IS A FAILURE (it. only.
> You only proved that it failed for you.
> Saying it in CAPS won't make it more scientific.

It is not scientific unless you have a theory which I'm saying is
false. You haven't provided one yet.

>> Protection against scandals? Is this all we get?
> You are welcome to have a better idea than liquid democracy.


we were discussing of consensus processes, on this very list no more
than a week ago. that could work. once I proposed something similar,
you tried to model that in a liquid feedback policy, without even
understanding how consensus worked.

>> You have no faint idea of scientific process. We have 3 year data run,
>> but I need you to remind me what your thesis was, when we started this
>> liquid experiment.
> LQFB has produced the PP-IT a quite impressive political programme,
> considering that we never got close to the necessary participation numbers.
> The problems of the PP-IT are in regulation and most of all in the respect
> of rule of law (but apparently most young parties start out like that).

I don't agree at all.

pirate party of italy started this binding liquidfeedback experiment
with a (still ongoing) "liquid democracy our ideology" campaign. it
got from 30 to 500 members. now it has 70.

the impressing political programme you are referring to is a massive
pile of unorganic and disorganic garbage.

>> > Usually they are the types who
>> > would like to be the bosses of the movement and actual democratic
>> > consensus has not been in their favour.
>> ad hominem?
> No, it's a large social phenomenon.
> As long as party structures aren't solid enough to protect against
> that kind fo rhethoric, it's just natural to advance it.
> Everyone by nature feels he is right, no?

no, only assholes.

>> you inserted a causal relationship between secret voting and voting on
>> people. you said that secret vote is only needed when voting on
>> people.
> Yes, that is the law in Germany and several other countries.
> Italy is currently discussing this kind of law and we have discussed
> it for our internal elections in the party, too. Where were you?

so you are positive in asserting that there are not and there have
never been secret vote elections regarding anything other than people?

>> there are secret votes that are not about people, and this is your
>> counterexample.
> Name me an example where it is reasonable to have secret vote on a political
> issue and not have a reason to question the outcome. Secret vote is a
> vector for vote trading.corruption.

I'm not saying it is reasonable. I'm saying it happens.

>> language analysis and antispam in a voting tool? will your party be
>> taken over by some bot?
> Democratic parties have an elected justice system. If certain types
> of rhethoric tricks are clearly identified and banned, this can be
> enforced. My favorite example here is the straw-man argumentation
> which is extremily popular in Italy and generally accepted.

it's funny.

>> > Stop expecting perfection from liquid democracy. Accept that it
>> > is merely the least bad of democracies and do something on how to
>> > improve it - if that is really your goal.
>> ad hominem?
> You are talking to me, I am talking to you.
> Of course you can inflate the meaning of the words "ad hominem"

You really have no idea of what those words mean, right?

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list