[pp.int.general] VIlfredo goes to Athens. /era Re: Liquid Democracy - a summary attempt

[Antonio Garcia]

FWIW... #IDIOCRAZY is a battlefield WITHOUT a democratic solution.

NEVER build one.

DYNAMITE any as soon as you have them in sight.

http://samedokan.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/klarmachen-zum-kentern/


Antonio.


> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:01:11 +0200
> From: lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] VIlfredo goes to Athens. /era Re: Liquid Democracy - a summary attempt
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:53:05PM -0300, seykron wrote:
> > I think that at this point we mostly agree on some things despite
> > specific tools:
> > 
> > * Liquid feedback does not solve core problems of representative
> >   democracy.
> 
> You can criticize other things about LQFB, but you can't say that
> it does not solve the core problem of representative democracy
> being corruption. It is a lot harder to corrupt a moving target
> such as a superdelegate.. and it is a very bad investment if
> that superdelegate after your corruption efforts suddenly loses
> all his delegational power. In practice, it is a much less
> rewarding job to be a lobbyist in liquid democracy then it is
> in a regular parliament. Also, you can't lobby all the super-
> delegates at the same time, because they are not in the same place.
> Even better if people delegated less, then we don't have too
> strong delegates. So if you use LQFB with less delegation, one
> thing is for sure: the core problem of representative democracy
> is solved.
> 
> > * Direct democracy and consensus is a difficult practice and it also
> >   has its own issues.
> 
> Why do you reduce the immense problems of direct democracy to mere
> "issues" ?
> 
> > * In any case, participation requires engagement from people. Liquid
> >   feedback platforms do not help on this, but a bad implemented
> >   consensus process neither.
> 
> Scalable software solutions do help on this very well. The reason
> why the political propositions of the Berliner pirates in 2011 was
> so advanced was because thousands of people participated in it.
> LQFB has this very nice ability to get the most intelligent and
> creative proposals out of people *iff* people are collaborative
> and sincerily trying to work out the best. If they are in a
> confrontational mode instead, LQFB can turn into a battlefield.
> Again, active participation could weed out the proposals from
> people that aren't being collaborative.
> 
> I presume that not only some tweaks to the software but also some
> good choices in regulations can improve the probability that LQFB
> will be employed the way it operates the best. That's also the case
> for other software.
> 
> And a frequent meta-problem of politics is to correctly and
> unemotionally identify the problems, analyse well and come to
> conclusions that have a logical and scientific foundations.
> 
> Too frequently I hear people say something like the toaster
> burnt my bread so I throw it away and use the microwave instead.
> When maybe it was just a question of correcting the parameters.
> And of course doing bread in the microwave will be very awful.
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140428/b6e6743c/attachment.html>