27/08/06 06:17 <AbdLomax>

[top-politics] How FAs exert power

Technically, they don’t.

But that is certainly not the whole story, indeed, it could be very misleading.

(FA = Free Association, a technical term as I use it, referring to organizations most easily described as modelled after the organizational traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.)

The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in the modern context, organization of the people; yet the structures used in politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.

Oligarchical control is here not used as a perjorative term. It is simply a description. Oligarchy may be appropriate under some circumstances. However, it is my thesis that full democracy is more powerful, that, properly designed and implemented, it makes a people strong. In my view, the relative success of the “West” is due to the degree of democracy which exists there. Which is also, in my view, quite limited and dangerously defective. But it is still stronger than blatant dictatorship and oligarchical control that is oppressive beyond limits.

Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organization of the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations. However, the communication and control structures which have been used have been largely structures inherited from royalist or strong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizations started as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for the benefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, what may have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments, replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties were organized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed, and, of course, did not simply fade away as had been predicted.

People who hold power only rarely give it up voluntarily. (They will believe that they know better than others what is best for the people, so anyone attempting to replace them must either be dangerously insane or an enemy of the people.)

Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the system are doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.

The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to the system, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions, they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.

What good are they, then?

You might as well ask, “What good is an open mind?”

FAs do facilitate communication. That’s really almost all they do. Once people can communicate effectively and efficiently, they can organize as needed whatever activities need to be undertaken independently of the FA.

Again, this comes from Alcoholics Anonymous. AA groups never own property, and starting a treatement center involves not only owning property, but also, perhaps, employing or supporting some method of treatment which might be controversial. So what do they do? Those members of AA who want to do it, simply form an independent association, formal or informal, to take on the task. They can structure this independent organization however they like. AA will not endorse it, but the individual members are completely free to endorse it, contribute to it, work for it, talk about it, represent it if authorized, etc.

The members met through AA.

There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents from the Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probably number three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. The party is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in the Libertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the new party, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forming another organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.

The Boston Tea Party is a traditional political party. Well, not entirely traditional, but it will run candidates for office, presumably, it has a platform. It takes positions. The Boston Tea Free Association won’t do any of these things. However, I think, members of the BTP will be encouraged to join the BTFA. What happens if they do?

Well, right off, the BTFA is a DP organization. As such, it will create, if the members use it, a communications structure that is immune to top-down control. In AA, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” The function of the BTFA has a number of aspects:

(1) It exists to advise the BTP leadership through deliberation and DP polls. (2) It exists to advise its members regarding political action, not by taking an organizational position, but by developing consensus and expressing that consensus back to its members, through the DP structure. (That is, members are advised by people they have chosen as trustworthy, not merely by some position developed as a majority view, or as a view of “leaders,” which is how traditional parties function.) (3) It is a way for people not members of the BTP to connect with the BTP. BTFA members can be in opposition to the BTP. Thus a path is created for the BTP to grow beyond its initial doctrinal and membership limitations. The BTP can choose to change or not; but if it chooses to ignore a developing consensus, well, it is simply turning away from power, which, in that context, would be beneficial to society. We don’t want parties gaining power which will ignore a social consensus. That’s dictatorship, really, even if it satisfies the technical requirements of an allegedly democratic structure. Such as by having enough votes on the Supreme Court to basically define and implement a desired election result, combined with a gutless opposition not willing to raise the serious constitutional question of a Supreme Court making a blantantly political decision based on outcome rather than the law itself…. ahem….

If the people are organized, there is no power that can resist them. Indeed, organization of the people is quite dangerous, if the organizational structure is such that it can be hijacked by ideologues, fanatics, special interests, or other parasites.

This is why I am so interested in seeing DP implemented, at first, in an FA context. DP is a general organization method, and it certainly has potential governmental applications, but I’d much prefer seeing it used in a relatively fail-safe environment. I propose FAs as that environment.

Plus, I suspect, FA/DP organizations have the potential to make changes in governmental structures unnecessary. After all, if one has minimal democracy in government, and the people are organized, they can simply elect those whom they trust to positions of power; and should those people be corrupted, they can quickly detect this and remove them. Even massive election fraud cannot withstand the people directly organized, even with far less effective organization than we forsee for FA/DP organizations.

It is not necessary for everyone to sign on to this plan, it is not necessary for even a majority to sign on. All that is needed, really, is for a few people to begin functioning this way. If the theory is correct, those small organizations will be successful, and they will grow and be imitated.

And this is the trick: if, say, liberals form an FA/DP organization and dominate it (not by control, but simply by percentage of membership), and conservatives see that this organization is growing, threatening them, they would be quite likely to adopt the structure. And the message is the structure. Because FA/DP organizations don’t have an organizational bias, if there were a “liberal” FA/DP organization and a “conservative” one, there would be nothing, really, to prevent them from merging and seeking consensus. FA/DP organizations, structurally, encourage consensus because with consensus, effort is not wasted in opposition. If caucus A wants to advance cause A, and caucus B opposes it, they are each free to form political action organizations for their respective purposes, collect money, organize volunteers, and so forth. But their net effect will be reduced because their actions will be opposite in direction. If, instead, they can find some kind of compromise or consensus that both groups can support, their power is amplified, not reduced.

How rapidly this would cause the traditions of opposition and conflict to change, I can’t predict. But FA/DP will create forces in that direction, and will make such change possible.

As to software for DP, certainly this will be useful. I’m trying to avoid making it necessary, making it the foundation of the organization; that is the cart before the horse. DP can be implemented with a minimum of software, even special-purpose proxy can be done this way, simply by creating proxy lists and allowing people to analyze them in their own ways. Decentralizing analysis is yet another protection against fraud, though the FA context is the strongest protection.

An open proxy list, anyone can check. And anyone can take an open voting record and analyze it to expand it by proxy representation. These are only polls, in FAs, they do not result — except for organizational decisions, which are minimal in FAs — in the application of power. Polls are reported by anyone, using analytical methods that they choose. If they suspect that a set of proxies are fraudulent, they can discount them, even without investigating them directly.

But it would be useful, I’d suggest, to consider a list of possible functions of a DP tool, starting with the simplest. Instead of trying to come up with at complete system, with all the bells and whistles and possible features.

I’ve been working with assumptions of open assignment of proxies and open voting, as it is in Town Meeting government. But some might want secrecy, and DP systems with some level of secrecy are possible. Note, however, that with secrecy comes risk of fraud that cannot easily be detected.

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

New discussion Write

Answer

29/08/06 03:33 <illegale>

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Technically, they don’t.But that is certainly not the whole story, indeed, it could be very misleading.(FA = Free Association, a technical term as I use it, referring toorganizations most easily described as modelled after theorganizational traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.)The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in themodern context, organization of the people; yet the structures usedin politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.

Indeed. Power structure is the root of the whole problem IMO also.

Oligarchical control is here not used as a perjorative term. It issimply a description. Oligarchy may be appropriate under somecircumstances. However, it is my thesis that full democracy is morepowerful, that, properly designed and implemented, it makes a peoplestrong. In my view, the relative success of the “West” is due to thedegree of democracy which exists there. Which is also, in my view,quite limited and dangerously defective. But it is still strongerthan blatant dictatorship and oligarchical control that is oppressivebeyond limits.

There is some relativelly ancient text where Ive seen OpenSource principle to enable new power structure supreme to current structures based in seemingly same political intuition:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=168&threadID=45240&messageID=69253

Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organizationof the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations.However, the communication and control structures which have beenused have been largely structures inherited from royalist orstrong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizationsstarted as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for thebenefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, whatmay have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments,replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties wereorganized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed,and, of course, did not simply fde away as had been predicted.

Parties do not have to be based on top-down principle. For an example, it can be based on fluid PageRanking mechanism. Yet, we have to see what is the essence of control of such power structures we have today. What I can notice, it is very simple thought. Control over information.

So, if political base has no information as long as higher positions keep it, there is no way for process of deliberation be started at all. All in all, this group was at first imagined as a place that gathers initiatives based on free flow of information.

Id like you to comment this view.

People who hold power only rarely give it up voluntarily. (They willbelieve that they know better than others what is best for thepeople, so anyone attempting to replace them must either bedangerously insane or an enemy of the people.)Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the systemare doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.

It depends on what is system to you? If you aim at current power structures, I pretty agree with you. If you deny benefits of taking legitimation from todays political institutions, I wont agree with you any more.

The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to thesystem, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions,they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.What good are they, then?

I am rather interested in this part. Yet, is there some pilot project or some demo version of such process, to make me understand you more correctly?

There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents fromthe Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probablynumber three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. Theparty is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in theLibertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the newparty, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forminganother organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.

Even this is relativelly off topic, may I ask you what is the leading idea of the new party?

(1) It exists to advise the BTP leadership through deliberation and DP polls.(2) It exists to advise its members regarding political action, notby taking an organizational position, but by developing consensus andexpressing that consensus back to its members, through the DPstructure. (That is, members are advised by people they have chosenas trustworthy, not merely by some position developed as a majorityview, or as a view of “leaders,” which is how traditional parties function.)(3) It is a way for people not members of the BTP to connect withthe BTP. BTFA members can be in opposition to the BTP. Thus a path iscreated for the BTP to grow beyond its initial doctrinal andmembership limitations.

Why should BTP leadership take your not yet developed infrastructure? I am asking you this as long as my recent talks to several party leaderships made me doubt in old personals who are used to current political process based on “behind the curtain process”. So they regularly take people not as partners, but as not needed obstacles, even trolls.

Of course, this is my political experience towards rather simmilar political projects.So, Id like to see your point of view that might be a little bit more promising to such structures.

As to software for DP, certainly this will be useful. I’m trying toavoid making it necessary, making it the foundation of theorganization; that is the cart before the horse. DP can beimplemented with a minimum of software, even special-purpose proxycan be done this way, simply by creating proxy lists and allowingpeople to analyze them in their own ways. Decentralizing analysis isyet another protection against fraud, though the FA context is thestrongest protection.

Do you have definition of software? There you might look at Echarps project leparlement.org, in some future it might be very interesting to my host organisation Tiaktiv. And as long as I can notice, we share pretty much, maybe even vision of software.

An open proxy list, anyone can check. And anyone can take an openvoting record and analyze it to expand it by proxy representation.These are only polls, in FAs, they do not result — except fororganizational decisions, which are minimal in FAs — in theapplication of power. Polls are reported by anyone, using analyticalmethods that they choose. If they suspect that a set of proxies arefraudulent, they can discount them, even without investigating them directly.

I am very glad to see you promoting full transparency. This is the same thought Echarp and Tiatkiv share also.

But it would be useful, I’d suggest, to consider a list of possiblefunctions of a DP tool, starting with the simplest. Instead of tryingto come up with at complete system, with all the bells and whistlesand possible features.

Very nice again. :-)

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1 New discussion Answer
- 13/09/06 06:27 <AbdLomax>
  
  At 09:33 PM 8/28/2006, illegale wrote:
  
  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
  The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in themodern context, organization of the people; yet the structures usedin politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.
  Indeed. Power structure is the root of the whole problem IMO also.
  The common error is to assume that the problem is the identity of the oligarchs. If we can just “throw the bums out,” then all will be well. But, generally, positions in the system are filled according to how the system operates. The problem is not those who fill the open positions, it is the system that creates and empowers these positions.
  
  So, if political base has no information as long as higher positionskeep it, there is no way for process of deliberation be started at all.All in all, this group was at first imagined as a place that gathersinitiatives based on free flow of information.Id like you to comment this view.
  
  Well, yes. What needs comment?
  
  Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the systemare doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.
  It depends on what is system to you? If you aim at current powerstructures, I pretty agree with you. If you deny benefits of takinglegitimation from todays political institutions, I wont agree with youany more.
  I think you agree with me. What I envision does involve, I suspect, ultimately, changing the system, using the system. That is, in a democracy, changes that are needed will be made using the mechanisms provided, such as elections, referenda, votes, etc.
  
  However, the question is how these changes are decided. The existing system is not going to decide to change itself, if I’m correct. (It may make a few changes from time to time, but I would not expect major changes.) Something else is needed. Essentially, the concept is to create a metasystem. A non-governmental body which generates and coordinates the intelligence needed to determine what changes are to be made, coupled with communications that allow a consensus to be created and communicated to the voters, who, assuming they consent, will then actually change the system using the tools that already exist, but which cannot be well utilized because they are not accessible except through organized action.
  
  The question always turns back to what kind of organization is necessary. Most efforts at reform organize themselves along a few traditional lines, and these lines mirror and reflect the structural problems which afflict the political system. Essentially, the problem of large-scale democracy has never been solved, or, at least, a solution has not been demonstrated. FA/DP is a proposed solution. It separates the intelligence function from the control function, leaving the latter to government, and leaving the former totally uncoerced. Coerced intelligence is not intelligence, it is reflexive, it generates copies of what controls it.
  
  The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to thesystem, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions,they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.What good are they, then?
  I am rather interested in this part. Yet, is there some pilot projector some demo version of such process, to make me understand you morecorrectly?
  Well, there are a few pilot projects mentioned on the Beyond Politics web site. Nothing that we can point to and say, Here it is! It works! Frankly, it takes perhaps three people who are serious to get an organization going, two is not quite enough!
  
  There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents fromthe Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probablynumber three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. Theparty is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in theLibertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the newparty, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forminganother organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.
  Even this is relativelly off topic, may I ask you what is the leadingidea of the new party?
  It is more purely libertarian than the Libertarian Party, which has been modifying its positions according to what is politically practical. Not surprising, some libertarians recognize, relatively easily, that FA/DP just might work. But that still is not enough to generate immediate action. We’ll see.
  
  Why should BTP leadership take your not yet developed infrastructure?
  
  They aren’t expected to take anything. Jan fomented the formation of a parallel mailing list for the BTP that is open to anyone, and that will not be censored except, if it is needed, in a TOP way. Further, Jan started a proxy list. That’s all. If people use the list, and if people use the proxy list, we will have an FA/DP organization. A complicated infrastructure is not needed. All that is needed to see a large organization is an understanding of a few principles (the FA principles) and the use of proxies from the start. If they are not used from the start, there are powerful forces that generally prevent their use later. Proxies threaten existing oligarchs; the most common oligarchy is the oligarchy of the active. Which can drastically distort the organization, distancing it from its membership. Only a few members, typically, can afford to be very active. Unless the active members somehow represent the inactive ones, there can be a bias, a shift in position from the inactive and the active. We expect this to some degree, because those who are active typically have better understanding. But it happens beyond that, it happens where the active leaders no longer have rapport and good communication with the members.
  
  And they will resist any change to the system which allows the inactive members to exert power, which proxy systems can do.
  
  But it is not necessary to begin with delegable proxy. That was today’s realization. Proxy is enough, as long as enough of the proxies understand delegability.
  
  Even proxy is not initially necessary if the members understand when it would be needed, and would be willing to return to activity briefly to establish it when needed.
  
  Iam asking you this as long as my recent talks to several partyleaderships made me doubt in old personals who are used to currentpolitical process based on “behind the curtain process”. So theyregularly take people not as partners, but as not needed obstacles,even trolls.
  
  Many leaders end up considering their constituents as an inconvenient nuisance. Serious mistake, and it is all too common.
  
  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
  +1 New discussion Answer
  - 02/10/06 13:20 <illegale>
    
    Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
    At 09:33 PM 8/28/2006, illegale wrote:
    Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in themodern context, organization of the people; yet the structures usedin politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.
    Indeed. Power structure is the root of the whole problem IMO also.
    The common error is to assume that the problem is the identity of theoligarchs. If we can just “throw the bums out,” then all will bewell. But, generally, positions in the system are filled according tohow the system operates. The problem is not those who fill the openpositions, it is the system that creates and empowers these positions.
    Indeed. What I ment by power structure was actually process of generating such entity. More precisely, closed process that is not prone to corruption and in the same time not aware of common good. Such structure as long as is based on individuals that are not connected to public, is promoting interests of itself and usurps democratic institutions and their political monopolly. Such structure, as long as is not prone to corruption is getting apparted from its public (that legitimates it) becomes alienated, having public as its biggest threat as long as its power position can hold and orient others power centers in order of tolerance.
    
    By starting TOP organisation that has direct public input and public output, organisation that promotes informed citizen, you disable process of alienatisation, even more precisely, you are starting quiet opposite process that merges to public more and more during its growth. You are actually starting first trully democratical power structure that is shaped precisely by common good.
    
    So, if political base has no information as long as higher positionskeep it, there is no way for process of deliberation be started at all.All in all, this group was at first imagined as a place that gathersinitiatives based on free flow of information.Id like you to comment this view.
    Well, yes. What needs comment?
    
    Do you agree that true democratic power structure must be TOP?
    
    Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the systemare doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.
    It depends on what is system to you? If you aim at current powerstructures, I pretty agree with you. If you deny benefits of takinglegitimation from todays political institutions, I wont agree with youany more.
    I think you agree with me. What I envision does involve, I suspect,ultimately, changing the system, using the system. That is, in ademocracy, changes that are needed will be made using the mechanismsprovided, such as elections, referenda, votes, etc.
    And of course non-formal process involved.
    
    However, the question is how these changes are decided. Theexisting system is not going to decide to change itself, if I’mcorrect.
    
    To be more precise, existing power structure wont accept principles that go against its corrupted essence. It wont go TOP. Yet, this system enables us to go TOP actually.
    
    (It may make a few changes from time to time, but I wouldnot expect major changes.) Something else is needed. Essentially, theconcept is to create a metasystem. A non-governmental body whichgenerates and coordinates the intelligence needed to determine whatchanges are to be made, coupled with communications that allow aconsensus to be created and communicated to the voters, who, assumingthey consent, will then actually change the system using the toolsthat already exist, but which cannot be well utilized because theyare not accessible except through organized action.
    
    You are talking about process of power generation, aka empowerment of the citizens?
    
    The question always turns back to what kind of organization isnecessary. Most efforts at reform organize themselves along a fewtraditional lines, and these lines mirror and reflect the structuralproblems which afflict the political system.
    
    That is what I find to be problem of closed political organisations that are by default corrupted as long as they usurp position of political position of public by their narrow interests.
    
    Essentially, the problemof large-scale democracy has never been solved, or, at least, asolution has not been demonstrated. FA/DP is a proposed solution. Itseparates the intelligence function from the control function,leaving the latter to government, and leaving the former totallyuncoerced. Coerced intelligence is not intelligence, it is reflexive,it generates copies of what controls it.
    
    How do you imagine proces of power generation by such bodies? How can these bodies gain political monopoly without coercion? If coercion is not part of this process, how to solve the problem of bullies actually?
    
    The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to thesystem, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions,they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.What good are they, then?
    I am rather interested in this part. Yet, is there some pilot projector some demo version of such process, to make me understand you morecorrectly?
    Well, there are a few pilot projects mentioned on the Beyond Politicsweb site. Nothing that we can point to and say, Here it is! It works!Frankly, it takes perhaps three people who are serious to get anorganization going, two is not quite enough!
    So, do you have some idea project of how to start such structure that would show to the rest of the people how good FA/DP is? I suppose this part is essential if you want to move on. What do you think about synergism with other simmilar initiatives, such as Tiaktiv? For an example, we also do envision FA/DPs as necessary part of free political network. Can we help each other in our missions?
    
    Why should BTP leadership take your not yet developed infrastructure?
    They aren’t expected to take anything. Jan fomented the formationof a parallel mailing list for the BTP that is open to anyone, andthat will not be censored except, if it is needed, in a TOP way.Further, Jan started a proxy list. That’s all. If people use thelist, and if people use the proxy list, we will have an FA/DPorganization. A complicated infrastructure is not needed. All that isneeded to see a large organization is an understanding of a fewprinciples (the FA principles) and the use of proxies from the start.If they are not used from the start, there are powerful forces thatgenerally prevent their use later. Proxies threaten existingoligarchs; the most common oligarchy is the oligarchy of the active.Which can drastically distort the organization, distancing it fromits membership. Only a few members, typically, can afford to be veryactive. Unless the active members somehow represent the inactiveones, there can be a bias, a shift in position from the inactive andthe active. We expect this to some degree, because those who areactive typically have better understanding. But it happens beyondthat, it happens where the active leaders no longer have rapport andgood communication with the members.
    
    Look at www.fmsdp.org/forum That is forum of youth of Croatian socialists party. So, what do you offer that this forum does not? I am looking for functional/effective thing and I would like to suggest it to them usefull tools in order of enabling process of decentralisation of the power. Can you elaborate why should they use your service in this very time? How can that service help to them?
    
    am asking you this as long as my recent talks to several partyleaderships made me doubt in old personals who are used to currentpolitical process based on “behind the curtain process”. So theyregularly take people not as partners, but as not needed obstacles,even trolls.
    Many leaders end up considering their constituents as an inconvenientnuisance. Serious mistake, and it is all too common.
    Why is that so that is happens so regularly, Lomax? Does it have anything to NON-TOP process of creating power structures that makes it non-compatible to public?
    
    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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
    +1 New discussion Answer
- 29/08/06 22:22 <Mark Rosst>
  
  L: The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in themodern context, organization of the people; yet the structures usedin politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.
  
  G: Indeed. Power structure is the root of the whole problem IMO also.
  
  -M: Agreed.
  
  […]
  Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organizationof the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations.However, the communication and control structures which have beenused have been largely structures inherited from royalist orstrong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizationsstarted as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for thebenefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, whatmay have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments,replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties wereorganized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed,and, of course, did not simply fde away as had been predicted.
  
  G: Parties do not have to be based on top-down principle. For an example,it can be based on fluid PageRanking mechanism. Yet, we have to seewhat is the essence of control of such power structures we have today.What I can notice, it is very simple thought. Control over information.So, if political base has no information as long as higher positionskeep it, there is no way for process of deliberation be started at all.All in all, this group was at first imagined as a place that gathersinitiatives based on free flow of information.Id like you to comment this view.
  -M: If this is Lomax’s position, then this is a bit presumptousness, because information is ‘cheap’ in comparison with authoritativeness. SD2 seeks authoritativeness, excellence, and trustworthiness.
  
  People who hold power only rarely give it up voluntarily. (They willbelieve that they know better than others what is best for thepeople, so anyone attempting to replace them must either bedangerously insane or an enemy of the people.)Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the systemare doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.
  
  G: It depends on what is system to you? If you aim at current power structures, I pretty agree with you. If you deny benefits of taking legitimation from todays political institutions, I wont agree with you any more.
  
  The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to thesystem, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions,they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.What good are they, then?
  
  -M: ‘What good are they, then?’
  
  If this question has to be asked, and the answer isn’t obvious to me, then this means that the public won’t understand or accept the concept. :-(
  
  L: As to software for DP, certainly this will be useful. I’m trying toavoid making it necessary, making it the foundation of theorganization; that is the cart before the horse. DP can beimplemented with a minimum of software, even special-purpose proxycan be done this way,
  
  -M: DP software is a cake-walk.
  
  L: simply by creating proxy lists and allowing people to analyze them in their own ways. Decentralizing analysis is yet another protection against fraud, though the FA context is the strongest protection.
  
  -M: If DP software is open-source, this is both fraud protection and decentalization.
  
  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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
  +1 New discussion Answer
  - 03/09/06 00:32 <illegale>
    
    Mark wrote:
    […]
    Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organizationof the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations.However, the communication and control structures which have beenused have been largely structures inherited from royalist orstrong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizationsstarted as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for thebenefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, whatmay have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments,replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties wereorganized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed,and, of course, did not simply fde away as had been predicted.
    G: Parties do not have to be based on top-down principle. For an example,it can be based on fluid PageRanking mechanism. Yet, we have to seewhat is the essence of control of such power structures we have today.What I can notice, it is very simple thought. Control over information.So, if political base has no information as long as higher positionskeep it, there is no way for process of deliberation be started at all.All in all, this group was at first imagined as a place that gathersinitiatives based on free flow of information.Id like you to comment this view.
    -M: If this is Lomax’s position, then this is a bit presumptousness,because information is ‘cheap’ in comparison with authoritativeness.SD2 seeks authoritativeness, excellence, and trustworthiness.
    When I am talking about essence, I am looking for parts that are IMO qualitatively distincted to optimised (our visions) political system.
    
    So, I am talking about basic reason why we do not have parts metioned above and you are talking about things you want to see in new system.
    
    Of course, there might be some other interesting concepts that are needed, probably even essential in shaping NPS. One of examples is fine rating procedure that give people trust in open and transparent political process.
    
    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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
    +1 New discussion Answer
30/08/06 01:04 <echarp>

On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:17:56AM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents from the Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probably number three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. The party is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in the Libertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the new party, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forming another organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.
Most interesting. Yet forming an association like AA, seems slightly different to a party. Proxies as representatives able to speak on the behalf of their clients is a step beyond the tutoring relationship, isn’t it?

Well, right off, the BTFA is a DP organization. As such, it will create, if the members use it, a communications structure that is immune to top-down control. In AA, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.”

This immunity is one bit I don’t believe in. Vigilance is eternally required.

And this is the trick: if, say, liberals form an FA/DP organization and dominate it (not by control, but simply by percentage of membership), and conservatives see that this organization is growing, threatening them, they would be quite likely to adopt the structure. And the message is the structure.

I really appreciate that. An empty shell into which all participants bring what they want, what they require.

But could it grow beyond an association? Can AA manage assets? Can they take decisions? Have they in the past gone through conflicts, through splits or secessions maybe?

Could this become an enterprise for example?

But it would be useful, I’d suggest, to consider a list of possible functions of a DP tool, starting with the simplest. Instead of trying to come up with at complete system, with all the bells and whistles and possible features.

I’m working on something slightly similar, but my goal is a tool used by any group to democratically write any kind of text. It’s not organizational, it’s an empty shell which could be used to sustain many a model. A media (forum, mailing list, moderated). Or so I hope :)

Btw, ever heard of panarchy ?

FA could be one way toward it, but they would need to grow toward more, much more! They would need to make our current structures irrelevant, derelict!

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1 New discussion Answer
19/08/06 16:37 <Markus Schatten>

Dear Lomax,

I was reading some posts where you refer to the concept of FA/DP. I found FA elaborated in this post, but I couldn’t find DP elaborated in any of your posts neither any link where I could read about it (maybe I overlooked it). Can you give me an introduction to this concept or a link?

On Sunday 27 August 2006 06:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Technically, they don’t.But that is certainly not the whole story, indeed, it could be verymisleading.(FA = Free Association, a technical term as I use it, referring toorganizations most easily described as modelled after theorganizational traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.)The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in themodern context, organization of the people; yet the structures usedin politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.
I agree to this. In contrast to bussines-oriented organizations, political organizations haven’t evolved into the information age. I don’t know if you have read the article I wrote about organizational architecture (http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Organizational_Architecture) where I address the concept of network organizational structure and especially the fishnet organizational structure. If I understood you right in this and some other posts, FA-s are a similar concept. Is that right?

Oligarchical control is here not used as a perjorative term. It issimply a description. Oligarchy may be appropriate under somecircumstances. However, it is my thesis that full democracy is morepowerful, that, properly designed and implemented, it makes a peoplestrong. In my view, the relative success of the “West” is due to thedegree of democracy which exists there. Which is also, in my view,quite limited and dangerously defective. But it is still strongerthan blatant dictatorship and oligarchical control that is oppressivebeyond limits.

I agree to this.

Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organizationof the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations.However, the communication and control structures which have beenused have been largely structures inherited from royalist orstrong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizationsstarted as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for thebenefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, whatmay have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments,replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties wereorganized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed,and, of course, did not simply fade away as had been predicted.
This is true, most political organizations are organized in top-down hierarchy structures. A great problem in such structures is that they does not allow enough information flow (their capacity to process information is very small) because of prescribed information channels of command and control. A heterarchy (or network) does not have such problems.

People who hold power only rarely give it up voluntarily. (They willbelieve that they know better than others what is best for thepeople, so anyone attempting to replace them must either bedangerously insane or an enemy of the people.)

The only thing people with power want is more power. This is why decentralization and dynamics of power is necessary.

Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the systemare doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.

Like a newer-ending fractal, yes!

The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to thesystem, but outside it. FAs don’t take controversial positions,they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.

This is similar to the concept of OpenSource, and something I had in mind. To organize a system outside “the system”. In this way the TOP system would in very short time show it’s predomination in information processing.

What good are they, then?You might as well ask, “What good is an open mind?”FAs do facilitate communication. That’s really almost all they do.Once people can communicate effectively and efficiently, they canorganize as needed whatever activities need to be undertaken*independently of the FA.*

Well in this place I would even go further: I would give the people tools and hand-on guides how to organize themselves e.g. decision-making procedures, organizational tools like balanced-scorecard, strategic planning, communication tools like forums, wikis, mindmaps etc.

Again, this comes from Alcoholics Anonymous. AA groups never ownproperty, and starting a treatement center involves not only owningproperty, but also, perhaps, employing or supporting some method oftreatment which might be controversial. So what do they do? Thosemembers of AA who want to do it, simply form an independentassociation, formal or informal, to take on the task. They canstructure this independent organization however they like. AA willnot endorse it, but the individual members are completely free toendorse it, contribute to it, work for it, talk about it, representit if authorized, etc.

This is also similar to OpenSource projects – who wants to contribute contributes, who wants to use the results uses them, who wants to start a project, starts it, which brings us to the concept of autopoiesis.

The members met through AA.There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents fromthe Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probablynumber three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. Theparty is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in theLibertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the newparty, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forminganother organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.The Boston Tea Party is a traditional political party. Well, notentirely traditional, but it will run candidates for office,presumably, it has a platform. It takes positions. The Boston TeaFree Association won’t do any of these things. However, I think,members of the BTP will be encouraged to join the BTFA. What happensif they do?Well, right off, the BTFA is a DP organization. As such, it willcreate, if the members use it, a communications structure that isimmune to top-down control. In AA, “Our leaders are but trustedservants, they do not govern.” The function of the BTFA has a numberof aspects:(1) It exists to advise the BTP leadership through deliberation and DPpolls. (2) It exists to advise its members regarding political action, notby taking an organizational position, but by developing consensus andexpressing that consensus back to its members, through the DPstructure. (That is, members are advised by people they have chosenas trustworthy, not merely by some position developed as a majorityview, or as a view of “leaders,” which is how traditional partiesfunction.) (3) It is a way for people not members of the BTP to connectwith the BTP. BTFA members can be in opposition to the BTP. Thus a path iscreated for the BTP to grow beyond its initial doctrinal andmembership limitations. The BTP can choose to change or not; but ifit chooses to ignore a developing consensus, well, it is simplyturning away from power, which, in that context, would be beneficialto society. We don’t want parties gaining power which will ignore asocial consensus. That’s dictatorship, really, even if it satisfiesthe technical requirements of an allegedly democratic structure. Suchas by having enough votes on the Supreme Court to basically defineand implement a desired election result, combined with a gutlessopposition not willing to raise the serious constitutional questionof a Supreme Court making a blantantly political decision based onoutcome rather than the law itself…. ahem….

Now I won’t engage the disscussion about this party which is forming, but let me ask: is there any chance that this party works on TOP principles of political action (http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP)?

If the people are organized, there is no power that can resist them.Indeed, organization of the people is quite dangerous, if theorganizational structure is such that it can be hijacked byideologues, fanatics, special interests, or other parasites.
I agree!

This is why I am so interested in seeing DP implemented, at first, inan FA context. DP is a general organization method, and it certainlyhas potential governmental applications, but I’d much prefer seeingit used in a relatively fail-safe environment. I propose FAs as thatenvironment.Plus, I suspect, FA/DP organizations have the potential to makechanges in governmental structures unnecessary. After all, if one hasminimal democracy in government, and the people are organized, theycan simply elect those whom they trust to positions of power; andshould those people be corrupted, they can quickly detect this andremove them. Even massive election fraud cannot withstand the peopledirectly organized, even with far less effective organization than weforsee for FA/DP organizations.
I’m not so sure about this. I think government structures need a huge bussines process reenginering ;-) Another thing is if someone is elected for some years, he can make a lot of damage until someone detects that. So, I think government structures need to be changed to get more autopoietical and dynamic in contrast to stable and rigid structures we have today.

It is not necessary for everyone to sign on to this plan, it is notnecessary for even a majority to sign on. All that is needed, really,is for a few people to begin functioning this way. If the theory iscorrect, those small organizations will be successful, and they willgrow and be imitated.

I agree.

And this is the trick: if, say, liberals form an FA/DP organizationand dominate it (not by control, but simply by percentage ofmembership), and conservatives see that this organization is growing,threatening them, they would be quite likely to adopt the structure.And the message is the structure. Because FA/DP organizations don’thave an organizational bias, if there were a “liberal” FA/DPorganization and a “conservative” one, there would be nothing,really, to prevent them from merging and seeking consensus. FA/DPorganizations, structurally, encourage consensus because withconsensus, effort is not wasted in opposition. If caucus A wants toadvance cause A, and caucus B opposes it, they are each free to formpolitical action organizations for their respective purposes, collectmoney, organize volunteers, and so forth. But their net effect willbe reduced because their actions will be opposite in direction. If,instead, they can find some kind of compromise or consensus that bothgroups can support, their power is amplified, not reduced.
How do you plan to build concensus?

How rapidly this would cause the traditions of opposition andconflict to change, I can’t predict. But FA/DP will create forces inthat direction, and will make such change possible.As to software for DP, certainly this will be useful. I’m trying toavoid making it necessary, making it the foundation of theorganization; that is the cart before the horse. DP can beimplemented with a minimum of software, even special-purpose proxycan be done this way, simply by creating proxy lists and allowingpeople to analyze them in their own ways. Decentralizing analysis isyet another protection against fraud, though the FA context is thestrongest protection.

Well, we are on the way to an information age where software will be necessary for more and more things. And in the end, why not use tools if they make your life easier. But I wellcome the initiative to avoid making it necessary, since some concepts can and should be implemented without software.

An open proxy list, anyone can check. And anyone can take an openvoting record and analyze it to expand it by proxy representation.These are only polls, in FAs, they do not result — except fororganizational decisions, which are minimal in FAs — in theapplication of power. Polls are reported by anyone, using analyticalmethods that they choose. If they suspect that a set of proxies arefraudulent, they can discount them, even without investigating themdirectly.But it would be useful, I’d suggest, to consider a list of possiblefunctions of a DP tool, starting with the simplest. Instead of tryingto come up with at complete system, with all the bells and whistlesand possible features.I’ve been working with assumptions of open assignment of proxies andopen voting, as it is in Town Meeting government. But some might wantsecrecy, and DP systems with some level of secrecy are possible.Note, however, that with secrecy comes risk of fraud that cannoteasily be detected.

Well TOP means Transparent Open Public – so I stand behind no secrecy ;-)

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1 New discussion Answer

Parlement

Identity

Filter

Visitors

Subscribers

Highest posts

Latest posts

Links

Blogs

Democracy

Search

[top-politics] 20060825#parlement

[top-politics] How FAs exert power