<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>FWIW... #IDIOCRAZY is a battlefield WITHOUT a democratic solution.<br><br>NEVER build one.<br><br>DYNAMITE any as soon as you have them in sight.<br><br>http://samedokan.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/klarmachen-zum-kentern/<br><br><br>Antonio.<br><br><br><div>> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:01:11 +0200<br>> From: lynX@pirate.my.buttharp.org<br>> To: pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] VIlfredo goes to Athens. /era Re: Liquid Democracy - a summary attempt<br>> <br>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:53:05PM -0300, seykron wrote:<br>> > I think that at this point we mostly agree on some things despite<br>> > specific tools:<br>> > <br>> > * Liquid feedback does not solve core problems of representative<br>> > democracy.<br>> <br>> You can criticize other things about LQFB, but you can't say that<br>> it does not solve the core problem of representative democracy<br>> being corruption. It is a lot harder to corrupt a moving target<br>> such as a superdelegate.. and it is a very bad investment if<br>> that superdelegate after your corruption efforts suddenly loses<br>> all his delegational power. In practice, it is a much less<br>> rewarding job to be a lobbyist in liquid democracy then it is<br>> in a regular parliament. Also, you can't lobby all the super-<br>> delegates at the same time, because they are not in the same place.<br>> Even better if people delegated less, then we don't have too<br>> strong delegates. So if you use LQFB with less delegation, one<br>> thing is for sure: the core problem of representative democracy<br>> is solved.<br>> <br>> > * Direct democracy and consensus is a difficult practice and it also<br>> > has its own issues.<br>> <br>> Why do you reduce the immense problems of direct democracy to mere<br>> "issues" ?<br>> <br>> > * In any case, participation requires engagement from people. Liquid<br>> > feedback platforms do not help on this, but a bad implemented<br>> > consensus process neither.<br>> <br>> Scalable software solutions do help on this very well. The reason<br>> why the political propositions of the Berliner pirates in 2011 was<br>> so advanced was because thousands of people participated in it.<br>> LQFB has this very nice ability to get the most intelligent and<br>> creative proposals out of people *iff* people are collaborative<br>> and sincerily trying to work out the best. If they are in a<br>> confrontational mode instead, LQFB can turn into a battlefield.<br>> Again, active participation could weed out the proposals from<br>> people that aren't being collaborative.<br>> <br>> I presume that not only some tweaks to the software but also some<br>> good choices in regulations can improve the probability that LQFB<br>> will be employed the way it operates the best. That's also the case<br>> for other software.<br>> <br>> And a frequent meta-problem of politics is to correctly and<br>> unemotionally identify the problems, analyse well and come to<br>> conclusions that have a logical and scientific foundations.<br>> <br>> Too frequently I hear people say something like the toaster<br>> burnt my bread so I throw it away and use the microwave instead.<br>> When maybe it was just a question of correcting the parameters.<br>> And of course doing bread in the microwave will be very awful.<br>> <br>> ____________________________________________________<br>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<br>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br></div> </div></body>
</html>