Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (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.
+2
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
+1
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
+2
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
+2
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+4
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+5
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
+0
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
When speaking on some real action we have to come down to software
development.
We in AD has found another initiative in France:
http://demexp.ouvaton.org/node/274
(Did you know of this echarp?), that we are testing currently.
And what about other soft, I know of the projects described here: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
But maybe there more, not yet aware of TOP and it’s members?
We in AD will now try to unite as many as possible into a larger
project if possible.
In this way we all avoid inventing the wheel over and over again.
So, the first step would be to gather all projcts in this thread.
I don’t want to discuss too much here about different principles but
rather to focus on common parts which we all can use.
Particular functons can be developed furhter in paralell or later when
needed.
The one demand as I see it is that all soft is made opensource, free to
all to use and improve.
What do you all say, would’nt this be a way of getting some action finally?
If you do, your first step would be to invite people from all projects that you know of, to this thread, thus forming a new community consisting of programmers rather than debaters…
Best regards,
Magnus Gustavsson
Aktivdemokrati.se
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
People,
This abstract is from this site:
http://www.steinbock.org/pubs/steinbock-ddd-abs.pdf
-—————————————————————————————————————————
Dynamically Distributed Democracy
An Adaptive Social Network for Decision-Making
Marko Rodriguez and Daniel Steinbock
Abstract:
Human organizations of all sizes and types face the task of making
decisions in a finite amount of time, ranging from a group of friends
making plans for an evening to a multinational governing body like the
United Nations. Different organizations use different processes for
generating ideas and selecting among them-each according to its
unique needs-and the particular process used has critical effect on
the quality of the decisions and the speed at which they are made. The
benefits associated with participatory systems include a large pool of
ideas from which to draw as well as a high overall approval rating. On
the downside, the time required to come to decision in large groups is
often excessive, especially when not all members possess the requisite
expertise. This largely explains the preference for hierarchy in formal
organizations, where decision-making power is concentrated in smaller
groups of representatives. However this reduces the chance of ingenuity
and raises the possibility of misrepresentation. This paper argues that
participatory and representative decision-making systems are not
mutually exclusive and in so doing formalizes an adaptive
decision-making system within which the benefits of both models
co-exist, while minimizing their respective drawbacks. Based on the
delegation of vote-power across a social network, the system adapts to
changing levels of participation by increasing the power of those
individuals who best represent the opinions of non-participants. We
report the results of a simulated decision-making process,
which quantifies the benefits of our model compared to traditional
methods of decision-making. We discuss the potential role our model
could serve in any human organization that requires high quality
decisions in a minimal amount of time.
-————————————————————————————————————————
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Yes, delegation is neccesary for some voters in all or some issues. AD has this possiility.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
MG wrote:
mG: Yes, delegation is neccesary for some voters in all or some issues.AD has this possiility.-M: ‘all or some’ – Which one? And who would decide?
I say have the possibility for delegation for ALL issues, with defaulting to general representitives.
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
-M: ‘all or some’ – Which one? And who would decide?
I say have the possibility for delegation for ALL issues, with defaulting to general representitives.
-This is almost as described by AD. The voter decides how to use his power.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
MG wrote:
-M: ‘all or some’ – Which one? And who would decide? I say have the possibility for delegation for ALL issues, with defaulting to general representitives.
mG: -This is almost as described by AD. The voter decides how to use his power.-M: My SD2-Smartocracy plan is never pure DD.
The voter can vote for an issue only, but the algorithm will use this voter’s voting power toward representitives.
This is practical because it can yield PageRankable data, despite having only local DD data.(Quality filtering.)
This also is ethical because:
1.The voter isn’t forced into RD, because (s)he gets representitives
anyway, regardless of the 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
This also is ethical because:
1.The voter isn’t forced into RD, because (s)he gets representitives anyway, regardless of the system.
-Talk about selfcontradiciton in one sentence!
-And it is unethical to not being able to decide things yourself if you know that you are able and you are part of the group/community/nation.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
M: This also is ethical because:
M: 1.The voter isn’t forced into RD, because (s)he gets representitives
anyway, regardless of the system.
mG: Talk about selfcontradiciton in one sentence!
-M: No, I already mentioned how even in a DD, the top administrators are representitives.
mG: And it is unethical to not being able to decide things yourself…
-M: Doink! This is still deciding yourself because it is democracy.(I have said this many times before.)
mG:…if you know that you are able and you are part of the group/community/nation.
-M: Yes, one should decide, thats why one should have inputs into the 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Some say that true democracy can exist without totally free speech. I say that there is no point in having democracy without full right to propose so free speech is a must for true democracy. What do you all say?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:49:24PM -0700, MG wrote:
Some say that true democracy can exist without totally free speech.It most certainly can exist. You would have political freedom, yet laws or other means to restrict what you can say.
Yet our current civilisation is based on free speech and the free market of ideas, in parts. Internet certainly improves on it, offering a new world actually based on ideas and their exchange.
I say that there is no point in having democracy without full right topropose so free speech is a must for true democracy.What do you all say?
+1 mostly from me, but democracy can be a tool used in different contexts.
Free speech is almost orthogonal in that respect. Well, my vision is one of a tool maker, that might explain a lot :)
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
echarp wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:49:24PM -0700, MG wrote:Some say that true democracy can exist without totally free speech.
ec: It most certainly can exist. You would have political freedom, yet laws or other means to restrict what you can say.-M: Yes, as it is now.
ec: Yet our current civilisation is based on free speech and the free market of ideas, in parts. Internet certainly improves on it, offering a new world actually based on ideas and their exchange.
-M: OK, nothing new here, gentlemen.
mG: I say that there is no point in having democracy without full right to propose so free speech is a must for true democracy. What do you all say?
ec: +1 mostly from me, but democracy can be a tool used in different contexts.Free speech is almost orthogonal in that respect. Well, my vision is one of a tool maker, that might explain a lot :)
-M: Yes, and there are varying freedoms by which people can vote - My SD2-Smartocracy gives people over 10 different kinds of voting data inputs, while your Parlement/EC-D gives people only 2 :
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
MG wrote:
mG: Some say that true democracy can exist without totally free speech.-M: No country has totally free speach, nor should they.
mG: I say that there is no point in having democracy without full right to propose so free speech is a must for true democracy. What do you all say?
-M: Political speach needs to be free or its no longer rule by the
people -
it would now be rule by speach controllers -
hence an oligarchy instead of a democracy.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
“-M: Political speach needs to be free or its no longer rule by the
people -
it would now be rule by speach controllers -
hence an oligarchy instead of a democracy. "
+1 -This is my conclusion too. But there might be need for some very basic rules, that are impossible or very seldom changed and that are voted about in the first place. That’s a constitution.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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.
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
From: Markus Schatten
To: cicdd@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [top-politics] Re: [cicdd] Gale (1): Achieving True Democracy
Dear Bruce,
First some introduction:
My name is Markus Schatten, as you might know, and I’m currently working on my masters degree in information and organization sciences on the Faculty of Organization and Informatics in Varazdin, Croatia. I published a book in collaboration with prof. dr. sc. Miroslav Zugaj with the title “Architecture of Modern Organizations” (in croatian), and a few scientific papers on the issues of open organizations, autopoietical information systems, network and biometrics security etc. My main field of interests are systems in the broader sense. For over a year now I work together with Gale and others on this system. When I state “we” I refer to TiAktiv (http://www.tiaktiv.hr).
Now, second let me define what I do understand under direct democracy, because it seems to me that I’m talking about one thing and you about another. I see it like the following definition:
Literally rule of the people; as interpreted in Athens, all decisions emanated from popular assembly without intermediation of elected representatives.
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_D.html
Third, I do NOT say that direct democracy is a “bad” concept or even worse that it should be left out and switch to another. I only say that direct democracy is only part of a broader picture.
-— Original Message -—
From: Bruce Eggum
To: cicdd@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [top-politics] Re: [cicdd] Gale (1): Achieving True Democracy
Autopoiesis is a very strong but complicated concept. I studied it in depth in order to create an autopoietical information and organization system.
RE: Your village water Here we are confusing ourselves. We do not have any “power” but want to act as if we did. First, I do want DD, for the sole purpose of establishing the people’s power to legislate, recall and decide by Initiatives, and Referendums. Once that is accomplished, than all the subjects you are addressing can be implemented.OK, how you plan to accomplish this?
I’ll probably try the following approach:
Create an autopoietical information system (like SourceForge.net only for politics).
Give it’s source code to public domain and see what happens. That’s it ;-)
I’m no polititian, and I do not want to bother with probelms which don’t interest me. My main goal is to create a snowball and put it on the top of a hill. If the snowball is of right size and shape and also positioned well enough, than I expect it to get greater and greater and, eventualy end up in a lavine like linux, mozilla, apache, phpBB, wikipedia and others did.
I also suggest a republican form of government. This to establish Universe, Nation, State, County and local government i.e. towns, cities etc. Than the issue of your local water, would be brought locally, if need the State, Nation and Universe could be petitioned. Of course, pollution such as industrial and agricultural may best be regulated in some from the “Universe” to protect rivers, oceans and seas from mercury and such pollutants. So, the local issue is first recognized by those affected. I would think to them it is important and they would determine the problem (need a well?) make petition and protest until they were heard. If you had IR&R the process would be easier. this should be solved locally or within Croatia. If you need money, than Croatia should negotiate for it.;-) Hmmm…. isn’t it easier that a problem is solved by those who are interested to solve it? Example: Let’s say the system I plan to implement exists and is fully functional (BTW: an early version of it can be downloaded on sourceForge http://sourceforge.net/projects/taopis/ but is not functional). A problem in Donji Zagon arises. The people who are affected start a new project on the system to resolve the problem. All people who want to participate in the solvation of the problem have a central place now where they can discuss. SD-2, DD or a similar algorithm provides a way to get a decision for this particular problem. And that’s it, no need for bringing a problem from local to global and involving a potentialy big number of participants who even do not want to participate.
Don’t your country’s citizens care about each other?Well, the sad true is, that the answer to this question is relative. The post yugoslavian society in Croatia is corrupted as the whole former country was in socialism.
Perhaps people may have to be reminded that they too could have water problems and how than would it be solved? We do need to give our neighbors Liberty in order for us to have Liberty. If this basic concept is not understood, all the net programs in the world will never provide an effective responsible government. Democracy is the people, ALL the people.I agree fully! This is something I am fighting for!
Marcus Well first of all how do you plan to get all people voting for a minor problem (on world level) like the problem of Donji Zagon watersupply infrastructure? Do you think that there would be any interest at all? Donji zagon is a village of about 50 people. At best you can get 1000 people who in some way are interested to solve this problem (and this number is quite optimistic). But, at world level this is a very low number. Also you have such problems all over the world, every village, even every citizen has its problems which are very important to him/her but not important enough to be resolved on a world level. So what to do in such a situation? (see above) Marcus Not every one has Internet is a really good argument. But only 150 years ago none dreamed about global television/radio… We are planning the future, so lets first of all define the Internet as the media of the future. Mapping between the Internet and traditional media (newspaper, television, radio, teletext) which is easy accessable by a very big number of citizens, is easy to accomplish in the information age we live in. So I don’t thik this argument stands. Direct democracy as a concept is very hard (allmost impossible) to implement without modern ICT. Bruce Switzerland had Direct Democracy in 1848, it certainly did not depend on the Internet! It is good to plan the future, but we must live in the present. These futuristic illusions will not provide a useable government system now.Well I wasn’t informed about Switzerland, but the system they use is not what I had in mind when talking about direct democracy. However, I see DD as a political structure in which every political decision (even the most minor ones) has to be made by some kind of referendum. This is not the case in Switzerland.
Marcus Another thing you mention is “Papers and local discussion groups…” which is a part of the infrastructure open politics reside on. We call this Open Politics Infrastructure (OPI) a system which resides on 3 main parts: the information system, the licence and the standard/certificate. But more about this if there is any interest. So you see, even you define “more” than just DD as a concept. There is a lot of “binding” concepts and structures which have to be defined to accomplish “true” democracy. Our standpoint is lets define the whole, not only particular details! Bruce I am very interested in the structures you plan to make and are now utilizing. Please share them.The concept of OPI is the mapping between OpenSource projects in the information domain to OpnePolitics projects in the political domain. Thid idea can be easily implemented in the present we live in and autopoieticaly drive global society to a place where “true” democracy can be easier achieved. Well the idea is the following. OPI consists of three main parts: the information system, the licence and the standard/certificate. The information system is the place where political projects are run, and every one who is interested in a particular problem can partitipate in the appropriate project or start a new one if the problem to be resolved has no project yet. We diferentiate between two parts of the project the documentation and the implementation. The documentation is the part of the project (be it BPR of the local government, water-supply infrastructure of Donji Zagon, a new or existing law to create/change or anything else) where part by part the process of implementation is defined. The documentation is information based and thus free (OpenSource), public available to everyone who has interest to review it. The implementation is the part of the project where the actual work is done, thus potentialy labour-based and also potentialy non-free (someone will probably be paid for it to get the work done. Now, here is where the license comes into play. The licence is a GPL-like (GNU Public Licence) document which protects the documentation part of the projects and gives directives who might implement the potentialy good projects on the information system. The idea is to create a standard of TOP (Transparent Open Public) activities for organizations (organizations in the broadest sense), something like ISO standards but not for quality, environment or e.g. security of organization processes but for the transparency, openess and publicity of organization processes. Thus every organization which functions according to the TOP principles can get a certificate, and thus implement the documentation of the projects. In this manner, if the projects on the information system are good (and open source projects let us sense this posibility) the organizations will try to get the certificate in order to take advantage of them. This is a way to drive the whole society to transparency, openess and publicity which are principles of greate importance for “true” democracy.
Marcus You see, there should me a more sophisticated decision model for making political decisions. All people who are interested and/or informed and/or qualified should participate in such a decision making process. One of such mechanisms is the OpenSource community. There are hundreds of thousands OpenSource projects out there, and even more programmers and developers involved in them. To apply such a model to political project management shouldn’t be to difficult and this is where our Open Politics Infrastructure comes into play. Another issue to adress here is the quality of the decision making proces. Think about how bad decisions of politicians often influenced milions of people (Hitler, Saddam…). There is a theory behind decision making which formulates the integrated decision making proces. This proces does not asure good decisions, but does make them better, and avoids fast and stupid decisions based on to less information or on affective state of mind. Bruce Yes, there is a need to define our “needs” and than ask some of these programmers if they can make it. Free is great, but at some point some one is going to pay band width, servers, computers, technicians etc. Another government petitionm eh?OPI resovles this issue.
Bruce: This would limit decision making to those who participate in that particular instrument. If you “farm out” the decision making process to SD-2 or some other competitive decision maker, you might as well leave the decisions with the Elected Representative. I suggest the instruments are good, and decisions should be made using them, than their conclusion published. This would allow everyone the option of examining the validity of the “decision” or discarding it. The people would than 50+1 decide. Marcus I agree to the stated. This is why we want to create something we call a central distributed information system. Imagine the following scenario: there’s a world wide standard interface between information systems which address the problems of politics. There is potentialy a very big number of such systems. The standard interface – a protocol which defines information sharing between the systems – resambles a great distributed database. This means that every project (be it minor or major) is managed in one single place. This means that the decision making process is public available and cenetered at one place (so there’s no “farm out”) because everyone who is interested can be involved in it. Bruce You seem to have much knowledge in these networks and systems. Could you provide a outline of such a system, which perhaps we could find a programmer to begin? By the way, who is the “we” you refer to in the above paragraph?Well as I stated my main fileds of study are systems in the broad sense ;-) I allready started the implementation of the system (link pasted above). The last year we created a full documentation of the system (for now only in croatian available) but I have transpated our Balanced ScoreCard (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tiaktiv-ap/message/781) so you can see a part of it. Not to mention that all our documents are open-standing (open source) and thus here for discussion. Nothing is finite and everithing can be changed (open source principle ;-)).
Marcus Your last sentence brings me to the issue I stated before. How would you get people enough interested to vote in minor problems? And, more important, how much do you think the average citizen will daily use his time on politics? Be aware of the fact that bilions of bilions of political decisions have to be made every day. Bruce Yes of course, that is why we will always need people to make these decisions. It is why I prefer to have many of these elected or appointed by the people so we have some control of their decisions.Last month a colegue (Pether Sorling from Sweden who is also trying to implement a similar system) brought to my attention a very interesting concept which I think could find its way into our system. The idea is to let the people decide to which rules, regulations and procedures they will obey, and thus what kind of voting system they will use. This is where concepts of direct democracy are easily aplicable…
There will always be errors, poor decisions. People having the power to change or recall a decision is important, also by 50+1. Marcus I absolutely agree, but I do not only talk about errors but other issues which have not been addressed by direct democracy. Bruce When the people have the power, these “other issues” can be resolved. Yes we need to brainstorm, develop, plan, to provide alternatives for the people to consider and adopt if they choose.I agree, my main goal is to create a platform (infrastructure) to make this happend faster and better trough modern ICT.
Marcus There is also another problem with 50%1. It does not define responsibility. There is a simple efect called collective responsibility which happens when something happens to someone (e.g. hart attack) in a crowd of people. Nobody feels responsible because there are a lot of other people also watching this situation. This is why I like SD-2 and similar mechanisms wich define responsibility in such situations. In a political sense imagine a nontrivial situation like a terrorist attack in a 50%1 community. Who will be the first to react? There will be someone of course, but at this situation he/her is limitted through the 50%+1 decision rule. In such situations there has to be a fast reaction (organizing help, security etc.) to save lives in this example. SD-2 makes a dynamic hierarchy for decision making, where fast reactions in non-trivial situations can be achieved. This is two topics, responsibility and immediate response. Responsibility to the voter is that they live with what they decided. Until recently people had extremely limited choices, thus limited responsibility. I believe if a IRR system is implemented which provides for total power to the people, the people will experience responsibility for their actions. Marcus I do not talk about responsibility only in this sense, but about responsibility for implementing decisions. The way from problem definition to making of the decision is clear, but who is going to implement and control a decision? Bruce Obviously there will be some form of hierarchy to hold people responsible to follow their directions and the law.I agree, so there is need for infrastructure ;-)
Immediate response, such as a missile launched at your country, would require immediate decisions. Some of the response could be decided ahead of time by the people. Delegating this responsibility to Chiefs of Staff, (heads of military) or another group perhaps of appointed people may be a method here. Marcus So you rather give power to the Chiefs of Staff then to the most relevant and adequate team of people for the particular problem. Is this DD? Bruce If a missile is en-route to blow up the Capitol of Croatia, you need an immediate decision. I suggest the Joint Chiefs because they “should” know what is happening. Otherwise the Prime Minister or such other person authorized for such an emergency decision. Again, get DD and the people can decide.OK
Certainly many responsibilities must be delegated. The key is to have power to change the decision/action. Marcus I agree! But there is a lot more ;-) Bruce Again you are clouding the discussion. Let us get the people “ruling” and the rest of this will work out. If you want to brainstorm “what if” fine, but that is a different topic all together.OK, so how we are going to make the people “rule” in this particular situation we live in? I suggest to take an indirect approach: let’s create a system (platform) for political activities which supports the main concept of direct democracy – people are in charge. Lets use common autopoietical concepts which have been proven to be effective (forums, blogs, open source management systems, wiki system etc.). Let us use modern scientific approaches from communicology (mind maps, brain storming, idea writing, delphi method), decision theory (multicriteria decision methods like electree, promethee, decision tree, analitical hierarchy process; the integrated decision making process framwork), organization theory (network, open, virtual, autopoietical organization). Let us create the system and promote it into common use, so we can indirectly affect common governments and political structures.
P.S: I would like to say that I once belived in DD but changed my mind when certain issues stated above were introduced to me by various individuals. Now, I still belive in the power of souvereign people, but also in additional concepts which have to be defined to accomplish this power. Best regards Bruce> How will you give the people power, without Direct Democracy?I am NOT going to leave out direct democracy, I just say that there are a lot of other issues which have to be addressed, besides direct democracy!
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
Faculty of Organization and Informatics
Varazdin, Croatia
markus.schatten@foi.hr
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hello everyone,
Been a few interesting messages the last few days but will try to limit my replies to the ones where I have some feedback..
Also wanted to welcome Emmanuel Charpentier to the list, always fun to see other open source projects progressing.
Agree in many ways with Markus, for me the important thing is to create a way for political organisations to be built bottom up. A SourceForge for political organisations is a good description for a developer for what I also want to achive. But I want to limit to type of policial organisations to political parties that has as of the main goals to stand in elections.
For people that don’t have any experience with open source it is important to point out that the motivation to create an open source project is very individual. For me learning is an very important aspects of it, since playing with technologies helps me stay up to date in my field of work.
Another important question for some people is when will it be finished
? To be honest I don’t have an clue, it’s takes a long time to refine
idea enough to be able to develop a solid application. Sharing
knowledge is
very important for me, one of the reasons is that is helps me fill gaps
in my knowledge and helps me look at a problem from different
perspectives. By sharing knowledge we also makes it easier for other
people to start new projects and for me it dosn’t really matters what
applications are avaible as long as the stack of applications covering
the political space increases.
To create a snowball or an synergy effect by getting more people engage
in politics online is more important for me than regulating power
structures. Liked the link
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_8/jordan/ , building an
identity online is important especially if one the goals is to create
an community around an open source project or organisation..
Back at paid work again, but will still be active on this list and on my project, plan to do small improvements and release snapshots once in a while. Don’t mind to just chill for a while and let the open source technologies i depend on like maven,spring,hibernate and ejb3 spec mature ;) Originally planned to have a finished alpa version ready to the Swedish Election in September this year, but might be an released snapshot of interest to some developers when Spring 2.0 and the EJB3 spec has been released instead.
To use a political idea to demonstrate some technologies for developers interested in open source & java server side development is a step forward compared to no code at all :)
To measure progress is always hard, added below my project description that got my project approved at SourceForge 2004-07-21.
— Description (at time of registration):
Want to create an j2ee application where you can create political parties, where the views of the party is directly decided through it’s members. Where the admin of the application can configure different portals depending of the difference in political systems in different countries. So more of mapping of the different political systems in different countries. The basic idea is that it will take very long to change a country to move to direct democracy but if you create an application that people can use to create/manage a political party you only need enough votes to get above the minimum level of votes to get some positions in the assembly. So by completing the registration the user will actually become a real politician andhave exactly the same influence over the views in the party as all the others members. Should be open since are politicians are scum so nobody should be allowed to hide how they have voted in different issues. Will use java,j2ee, hibernate,maven,ant,junit,cactus and struts. —
Almost two years later I still enjoying to have delusions about how it could be implemented ;) But compared to before I now have an website up and released some snapshots to the code if anybody finds it interesting to play with.
When the traditional political parties start to be replaced by online parties then it might to be late but I can’t see that happen in the near future.
Hope this message isn’t to confusing and good luck with your projects.
Best regards
Pether
Now, second let me define what I do understand under directdemocracy, because it seems to me that I’m talking about one thingand you about another. I see it like the following definition:Literally rule of the people; as interpreted in Athens, all decisionsemanated from popular assembly without intermediation of electedrepresentatives.
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_D.html
Third, I do NOT say that direct democracy is a “bad” concept or evenworse that it should be left out and switch to another. I only saythat direct democracy is only part of a broader picture.-— Original Message-— From: Bruce Eggum To: cicdd@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:47 AMSubject: Re: Fw: [top-politics] Re: [cicdd] Gale (1): AchievingTrue DemocracyBruce:I am now studyinghttp://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.quick/autopoiesis.html autopoiesis abit. It has some attributes, however I find it a bit difficult tocreate and utilize. I will review it more of course. Autopoiesis is a very strong but complicated concept. I studied it indepth in order to create an autopoietical information andorganization system.RE: Your village water Here we are confusing ourselves. We do nothave any “power” but want to act as if we did. First, I do want DD,for the sole purpose of establishing the people’s power to legislate,recall and decide by Initiatives, and Referendums. Once that isaccomplished, than all the subjects you are addressing can beimplemented. OK, how you plan to accomplish this?I’ll probably try the following approach:Create an autopoietical information system (like SourceForge.net onlyfor politics).Give it’s source code to public domain and see what happens. That’sit ;-)I’m no polititian, and I do not want to bother with probelms whichdon’t interest me. My main goal is to create a snowball and put it onthe top of a hill. If the snowball is of right size and shape andalso positioned well enough, than I expect it to get greater andgreater and, eventualy end up in a lavine like linux, mozilla,apache, phpBB, wikipedia and others did.I also suggest a republican form of government. This to establishUniverse, Nation, State, County and local government i.e. towns,cities etc. Than the issue of your local water, would be broughtlocally, if need the State, Nation and Universe could be petitioned.Of course, pollution such as industrial and agricultural may best beregulated in some from the “Universe” to protect rivers, oceans andseas from mercury and such pollutants. So, the local issue is first recognized by those affected. I wouldthink to them it is important and they would determine the problem(need a well?) make petition and protest until they were heard. Ifyou had IR&R the process would be easier. this should be solvedlocally or within Croatia. If you need money, than Croatia shouldnegotiate for it. ;-) Hmmm…. isn’t it easier that a problem is solved by those whoare interested to solve it? Example: Let’s say the system I plan toimplement exists and is fully functional (BTW: an early version of itcan be downloaded on sourceForgehttp://sourceforge.net/projects/taopis/ but is not functional). Aproblem in Donji Zagon arises. The people who are affected start anew project on the system to resolve the problem. All people who wantto participate in the solvation of the problem have a central placenow where they can discuss. SD-2, DD or a similar algorithm providesa way to get a decision for this particular problem. And that’s it,no need for bringing a problem from local to global and involving apotentialy big number of participants who even do not want toparticipate.Don’t your country’s citizens care about each other? Well, the sad true is, that the answer to this question is relative.The post yugoslavian society in Croatia is corrupted as the wholeformer country was in socialism.Perhaps people may have to be reminded that they too could havewater problems and how than would it be solved? We do need to giveour neighbors Liberty in order for us to have Liberty. If this basicconcept is not understood, all the net programs in the world willnever provide an effective responsible government. Democracy is the people, ALL the people. I agree fully! This is something I am fighting for!Marcus Well first of all how do you plan to get all people votingfor a minor problem (on world level) like the problem of Donji Zagonwatersupply infrastructure? Do you think that there would be anyinterest at all? Donji zagon is a village of about 50 people. At bestyou can get 1000 people who in some way are interested to solve thisproblem (and this number is quite optimistic). But, at world levelthis is a very low number. Also you have such problems all over theworld, every village, even every citizen has its problems which arevery important to him/her but not important enough to be resolved ona world level. So what to do in such a situation? (see above) Marcus Not every one has Internet is a really good argument. But only 150years ago none dreamed about global television/radio… We areplanning the future, so lets first of all define the Internet as themedia of the future. Mapping between the Internet and traditionalmedia (newspaper, television, radio, teletext) which is easyaccessable by a very big number of citizens, is easy to accomplish inthe information age we live in. So I don’t thik this argument stands.Direct democracy as a concept is very hard (allmost impossible) toimplement without modern ICT. Bruce Switzerland had Direct Democracy in 1848, it certainly didnot depend on the Internet! It is good to plan the future, but wemust live in the present. These futuristic illusions will not providea useable government system now. Well I wasn’t informed about Switzerland, but the system they use isnot what I had in mind when talking about direct democracy. However,I see DD as a political structure in which every political decision(even the most minor ones) has to be made by some kind of referendum.This is not the case in Switzerland.Marcus Another thing you mention is “Papers and local discussiongroups…” which is a part of the infrastructure open politics resideon. We call this Open Politics Infrastructure (OPI) a system whichresides on 3 main parts: the information system, the licence and thestandard/certificate. But more about this if there is any interest.So you see, even you define “more” than just DD as a concept. Thereis a lot of “binding” concepts and structures which have to bedefined to accomplish “true” democracy. Our standpoint is lets definethe whole, not only particular details! Bruce I am very interested in the structures you plan to make andare now utilizing. Please share them.The concept of OPI is the mapping between OpenSource projects in theinformation domain to OpnePolitics projects in the political domain.Thid idea can be easily implemented in the present we live in andautopoieticaly drive global society to a place where “true” democracycan be easier achieved.Well the idea is the following. OPI consists of three main parts: theinformation system, the licence and the standard/certificate. Theinformation system is the place where political projects are run, andevery one who is interested in a particular problem can partitipatein the appropriate project or start a new one if the problem to beresolved has no project yet. We diferentiate between two parts of theproject the documentation and the implementation. The documentationis the part of the project (be it BPR of the local government,water-supply infrastructure of Donji Zagon, a new or existing law tocreate/change or anything else) where part by part the process ofimplementation is defined. The documentation is information based andthus free (OpenSource), public available to everyone who has interestto review it. The implementation is the part of the project where theactual work is done, thus potentialy labour-based and also potentialynon-free (someone will probably be paid for it to get the work done.Now, here is where the license comes into play. The licence is aGPL-like (GNU Public Licence) document which protects thedocumentation part of the projects and gives directives who mightimplement the potentialy good projects on the information system. Theidea is to create a standard of TOP (Transparent Open Public)activities for organizations (organizations in the broadest sense),something like ISO standards but not for quality, environment or e.g.security of organization processes but for the transparency, openessand publicity of organization processes. Thus every organizationwhich functions according to the TOP principles can get acertificate, and thus implement the documentation of the projects.In this manner, if the projects on the information system are good(and open source projects let us sense this posibility) theorganizations will try to get the certificate in order to takeadvantage of them. This is a way to drive the whole society totransparency, openess and publicity which are principles of greateimportance for “true” democracy.Marcus You see, there should me a more sophisticateddecision model for making political decisions. All people who areinterested and/or informed and/or qualified should participate insuch a decision making process. One of such mechanisms is the OpenSource community. Thereare hundreds of thousands OpenSource projects out there, and evenmore programmers and developers involved in them. To apply such amodel to political project management shouldn’t be to difficult andthis is where our Open Politics Infrastructure comes into play. Another issue to adress here is the quality of the decisionmaking proces. Think about how bad decisions of politicians ofteninfluenced milions of people (Hitler, Saddam…). There is a theorybehind decision making which formulates the integrated decisionmaking proces. This proces does not asure good decisions, but doesmake them better, and avoids fast and stupid decisions based on toless information or on affective state of mind. Bruce Yes, there is a need to define our “needs” and than ask someof these programmers if they can make it. Free is great, but at somepoint some one is going to pay band width, servers, computers,technicians etc. Another government petitionm eh? OPI resovles this issue.Bruce: This would limit decision making to those whoparticipate in that particular instrument. If you “farm out” thedecision making process to SD-2 or some other competitive decisionmaker, you might as well leave the decisions with the ElectedRepresentative. I suggest the instruments are good, and decisionsshould be made using them, than their conclusion published. Thiswould allow everyone the option of examining the validity of the"decision" or discarding it. The people would than 50+1 decide. Marcus I agree to the stated. This is why we want to createsomething we call a central distributed information system. Imaginethe following scenario: there’s a world wide standard interfacebetween information systems which address the problems of politics.There is potentialy a very big number of such systems. The standardinterface – a protocol which defines information sharing between thesystems – resambles a great distributed database. This means thatevery project (be it minor or major) is managed in one single place.This means that the decision making process is public available andcenetered at one place (so there’s no “farm out”) because everyonewho is interested can be involved in it. Bruce You seem to have much knowledge in these networks andsystems. Could you provide a outline of such a system, which perhapswe could find a programmer to begin? By the way, who is the “we” yourefer to in the above paragraph? Well as I stated my main fileds of study are systems in the broadsense ;-) I allready started the implementation of the system (linkpasted above). The last year we created a full documentation of thesystem (for now only in croatian available) but I have transpated ourBalanced ScoreCard(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tiaktiv-ap/message/781) so you can seea part of it. Not to mention that all our documents are open-standing(open source) and thus here for discussion. Nothing is finite andeverithing can be changed (open source principle ;-)).Marcus Your last sentence brings me to the issue I stated before.How would you get people enough interested to vote in minor problems?And, more important, how much do you think the average citizen willdaily use his time on politics? Be aware of the fact that bilions ofbilions of political decisions have to be made every day. Bruce Yes of course, that is why we will always need people to makethese decisions. It is why I prefer to have many of these elected orappointed by the people so we have some control of their decisions.Last month a colegue (Pether Sorling from Sweden who is also tryingto implement a similar system) brought to my attention a veryinteresting concept which I think could find its way into our system.The idea is to let the people decide to which rules, regulations andprocedures they will obey, and thus what kind of voting system theywill use. This is where concepts of direct democracy are easilyaplicable…There will always be errors, poor decisions. People having thepower to change or recall a decision is important, also by 50+1. Marcus I absolutely agree, but I do not only talk about errors butother issues which have not been addressed by direct democracy.Bruce When the people have the power, these “other issues” can beresolved. Yes we need to brainstorm, develop, plan, to providealternatives for the people to consider and adopt if they choose. I agree, my main goal is to create a platform (infrastructure) tomake this happend faster and better trough modern ICT.Marcus There is also another problem with 50%1. It does notdefine responsibility. There is a simple efect called collectiveresponsibility which happens when something happens to someone (e.g.hart attack) in a crowd of people. Nobody feels responsible becausethere are a lot of other people also watching this situation. This iswhy I like SD-2 and similar mechanisms wich define responsibility insuch situations. In a political sense imagine a nontrivial situationlike a terrorist attack in a 50%1 community. Who will be the firstto react? There will be someone of course, but at this situationhe/her is limitted through the 50%+1 decision rule. In suchsituations there has to be a fast reaction (organizing help, securityetc.) to save lives in this example. SD-2 makes a dynamic hierarchyfor decision making, where fast reactions in non-trivial situationscan be achieved. This is two topics, responsibility and immediate response.Responsibility to the voter is that they live with what theydecided. Until recently people had extremely limited choices, thuslimited responsibility. I believe if a IRR system is implementedwhich provides for total power to the people, the people willexperience responsibility for their actions. Marcus I do not talk about responsibility only in this sense, butabout responsibility for implementing decisions. The way from problemdefinition to making of the decision is clear, but who is going toimplement and control a decision? Bruce Obviously there will be some form of hierarchy to hold peopleresponsible to follow their directions and the law.I agree, so there is need for infrastructure ;-)Immediate response, such as a missile launched at your country,would require immediate decisions. Some of the response could bedecided ahead of time by the people. Delegating this responsibilityto Chiefs of Staff, (heads of military) or another group perhaps of appointed people may be a method here. Marcus So you rather give power to the Chiefs of Staff then to themost relevant and adequate team of people for the particular problem.Is this DD?Bruce If a missile is en-route to blow up the Capitol of Croatia,you need an immediate decision. I suggest the Joint Chiefs becausethey “should” know what is happening. Otherwise the Prime Minister orsuch other person authorized for such an emergency decision. Again,get DD and the people can decide. OKCertainly many responsibilities must be delegated. The key isto have power to change the decision/action.Marcus I agree! But there is a lot more ;-)Bruce Again you are clouding the discussion. Let us get the people"ruling" and the rest of this will work out. If you want tobrainstorm “what if” fine, but that is a different topic alltogether. OK, so how we are going to make the people “rule” in this particularsituation we live in? I suggest to take an indirect approach: let’s create a system(platform) for political activities which supports the main conceptof direct democracy – people are in charge. Lets use commonautopoietical concepts which have been proven to be effective(forums, blogs, open source management systems, wiki system etc.).Let us use modern scientific approaches from communicology (mindmaps, brain storming, idea writing, delphi method), decision theory(multicriteria decision methods like electree, promethee, decisiontree, analitical hierarchy process; the integrated decision makingprocess framwork), organization theory (network, open, virtual,autopoietical organization). Let us create the system and promote itinto common use, so we can indirectly affect common governments andpolitical structures.P.S: I would like to say that I once belived in DD but changed mymind when certain issues stated above were introduced to me byvarious individuals. Now, I still belive in the power of souvereignpeople, but also in additional concepts which have to be defined toaccomplish this power. Best regards Bruce> How will you give the people power, without DirectDemocracy?I am NOT going to leave out direct democracy, I just say that thereare a lot of other issues which have to be addressed, besides directdemocracy!Best regardsMarkus Schatten, dipl. inf.Faculty of Organization and InformaticsVarazdin, Croatiamarkus.schatten@foi.hr
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Pether
Nice to hear from you ;-)
From: “Pether Sorling” <pether_sorling@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <top-politics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [top-politics] Re: [cicdd] Gale (1): Achieving True
Democracy
Hello everyone,Been a few interesting messages the last few days but will try to limitmy replies to the ones where I have some feedback..Also wanted to welcome Emmanuel Charpentier to the list, always fun tosee other open source projects progressing.Agree in many ways with Markus,
;-)
for me the important thing is to create
a way for political organisations to be built bottom up. A SourceForgefor political organisations is a good description for a developer forwhat I also want to achive. But I want to limit to type of policialorganisations to political parties that has as of the main goals tostand in elections.OK, that’s a good point. But, what is the main difference between parties and other political organizations? As I see it there is not much difference, because an organization is an organization no matter what it does. I also belive that parties are just on part of the story, because there have to be other organizations which would be something like a counterpart to parties, who could focus on specific fields of mankind. Other organizations play an important role in a political system, so I think that they should also be included in such a system.
For people that don’t have any experience with open source it isimportant to point out that the motivation to create an open sourceproject is very individual.
This is something we want to achieve with the TOP standard. Likwise as ISO9001 tries to change employees way of thinking about quality (not going into how successfull it is), we would like to change peoples way of thinking about politics in an OpenSource manner. Any suggestions?
For me learning is an very importantaspects of it, since playing with technologies helps me stay up to datein my field of work.
Yes learning and playing with technology is certainly a nice thing to do; but how to switch this into a political context?
Another important question for some people is when will it be finished? To be honest I don’t have an clue, it’s takes a long time to refineidea enough to be able to develop a solid application. Sharingknowledge isvery important for me, one of the reasons is that is helps me fill gapsin my knowledge and helps me look at a problem from differentperspectives. By sharing knowledge we also makes it easier for otherpeople to start new projects and for me it dosn’t really matters whatapplications are avaible as long as the stack of applications coveringthe political space increases.
I agree. This is one issue Gale tried to point out. He looks at our projects from an end-user perspective, so he does not see java, ruby, axis or maven; he only sees that there is no working system for now. Well this is something we should work on. Maybe join forces? ;-))
To create a snowball or an synergy effect by getting more people engagein politics online is more important for me than regulating powerstructures.
I fully agree! But, it’s a funny think that as more I am in this project, the more it seems to me that the snowball is allready in position and just waiting to be pushed down the hill. I see a lot of people around the world who came to similar or even same concepts of a system which might change the world… Aaaah, nice dream ;-)))
Liked the linkhttp://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_8/jordan/ , building anidentity online is important especially if one the goals is to createan community around an open source project or organisation..Back at paid work again, but will still be active on this list and onmy project, plan to do small improvements and release snapshots once ina while. Don’t mind to just chill for a while and let the open sourcetechnologies i depend on like maven,spring,hibernate and ejb3 specmature ;) Originally planned to have a finished alpa version ready tothe Swedish Election in September this year, but might be an releasedsnapshot of interest to some developers when Spring 2.0 and the EJB3spec has been released instead.
Well, have fun chilling ;-)
To use a political idea to demonstrate some technologies for developersinterested in open source & java server side development is a stepforward compared to no code at all :)
I’m not sure if I understand, could you explain this in more detail?
To measure progress is always hard, added below my project descriptionthat got my project approved at SourceForge 2004-07-21.—Description (at time of registration):Want to create an j2ee application where you can create politicalparties, where the views of the party is directly decided through it’smembers. Where the admin of the application can configure differentportals depending of the difference in political systems in differentcountries. So more of mapping of the different political systems indifferent countries. The basic idea is that it will take very long tochange a country to move to direct democracy but if you create anapplication that people can use to create/manage a political party youonly need enough votes to get above the minimum level of votes to getsome positions in the assembly. So by completing the registration theuser will actually become a real politician andhave exactly the sameinfluence over the views in the party as all the others members. Shouldbe open since are politicians are scum
;-)))))))
so nobody should be allowed to
hide how they have voted in different issues. Will use java,j2ee,hibernate,maven,ant,junit,cactus and struts.—Almost two years later I still enjoying to have delusions about how itcould be implemented ;) But compared to before I now have an website upand released some snapshots to the code if anybody finds it interestingto play with.Well, this is not so good… Hopes things will get better!
When the traditional political parties start to be replaced by onlineparties then it might to be late but I can’t see that happen in thenear future.
That’s true, so we need to be faster. e-Europe, e-Croatia → all political nonsense which has nothing to do with greater democracy!
Hope this message isn’t to confusing and good luck with your projects.
It’s not confusing at all, it kind of resambles my feelings about the whole situation. I would like that I have more time in doing this, or even have some co-developers so things could go faster. But, I still belive that once we will create systems which will change the future of humanity ;-)
Best regards
MS
Yahoo! Groups Links
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Karl
I finally read this article about the voting system. This system can function very good in a party which is a simple entity consisting of few individuals of similar interest to address major problems and issues. But, can it function on a higer level? What if the party wins the elections and starts “ruling” the country with such a system? The fundamental problem is that the minor problems will never get enough popularity to create a decision. The second problem are non-trivial and urgent situations where a fast decision is needed, e.g. a terrorist attack or even worse: war. Untill a proposal gets enough popularity to be transformed into a decision and thus into action manny people can get hurt. Is there any mechanism to get rid of this problems?
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
Faculty of Organization and Informatics,
Varazdin, Croatia
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
From: “Karl” <karlmb@spray.se>
To: <top-politics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: [top-politics] Re: New yahoo group TOP-politics – Pether #02
With a sorting of the current accumulated support accordingAktivdemokratis continous voting process, shouldnt this be a bettersolution than to filter the polls totally?With our moel everbody can set their own values for sorting in orderto only view the polls where the action is.The rest can be filtered away until they have gained support.From our party programme:http://wse75376.web16.talkactive.net/ads%20websida/Party%20program.htmlMore on continuous votingBelow will follow a more detailed description on the continuousvoting procedure. Mathematic skills from compulsory school will beenough to be able to understand it.All party members have the right to put a proposal in the votingsystem at any time. Every new proposal will be marked with a uniqueID-number, which will be used for references to this proposal. Thepropose cannot be anonymous.A vote can be
1 (for a “no”), 0 (for “abstains from voting”) +1 (foryes"). At the start of the voting, everybody is considered to havevoted 0 for the proposal except the proposer (and the accomplisher;see regulations) who automatically are considered to have vote +1. Aslong as the voting continues, it’s allowed to change one’s vote. Onthe contrary, the text in a put proposal is not allowed under anycircumstances, to be changed afterwards, not even for correctingspelling errors. Voting cannot yet be carried out anonymous butfuture releases of the voting system will be able to guarantee theanonymity of the voters if it’s requested by the voter.Votes are counted on a regular basis once a week. When the votingsystem has been automated, the frequency of the counting will beincreased to once a day. In future releases of the voting system thevote counting will be carried out by several independent votecounters to guarantee a correct calculation of the voting results.Each proposal has a certain accumulated support, which is a reelnumber. When the voting start, the accumulated support for theproposal is set to 0. The support is then updated at every votingcount in the following way: first the mean value of all party membersis calculated. After that, the mean value is divided by an inertiainvariable currently being 1 (which is the equivalent of 7 when votecounting is carried out every day). Then the result is added to theaccumulated support of the proposal. If the mean value and thesupport have different signs, the support is first put to zero beforethe addition. The same will happen if the mean value is zero.Whenever the accumulated support for the proposal becomes 1 orhigher, it will be sanctioned. If it will become -1 or lower, it willbe rejected. In both cases, the proposal is no longer an object forvoting.An explaining sketch can be suitable:The diagram shows how the mean value of votes divided by the inertiainvariable (the so called momentary support) varies over time. Theaccumulated support at a certain time thereby equals the area betweenthe curve and the x-axis between the current point of time and whenthe curve crossed the x-axis by the latest. As seen in the diagram,both the momentary and the accumulated support have switched betweenboth negative and positive. Areas below the x-axis are indicated redand above x-axis they are green. If there develops a continuous greenarea with the area of 1or more, the proposal is sanctioned. In asimilar way, it will be rejected if a red area with the area of 1 ormore develops. The reason for only taking continuous areas intoconsideration depends on the “set to zero”-rule explained above. Thisis done to set aside the point in setting the accumulated support tozero for a proposal with a negative accumulated support where themean value of votes have switched again to positive, by putting a newproposal with exactly the same content.All members can via the voting system see how close a proposal is tobe sanctioned or rejected at any time. Among other things, it ispossible to view all proposals sorted after their accumulatedsupport. At the bottom of this list there is mostly noise that isonly of interest to the most devoted voters whereas proposals at thetop of the list have great chances to be reviewed by mass media.Next figure illustrates that it is impossible to tell how long timeit will take to take a decision. It clearly depends upon how fast theaccumulated support grows. If great unity prevails it can be overafter a week, whereas proposals out of the interest of the voters canlead a languishing life for decades without neither being sanctionedof rejected.The process of decision-making consists of several more steps thanthe voting process itself. Among other things a proposal will notautomatically be a decision just because it has been sanctioned.Complete information is to be found in the regulations, where allsteps of the decision making process are described in detail.— In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, lpc1998 <lpc1998@…> wrote:[Eric]: “If an issue does not have the endorsement of 25% ofthe members, then it could not be reasonably expected to have 50% + 1support at the poll. This filtering is designed to clear out manyballoting of issues that have no fair chance of gaining the supportof a true majority of the members so as not to waste unnecessarilythe members’ time and efforts at the polls.”[Pether]: “This reasoning assumes that most of the members readsthe proposedissues, but if the issues are different categories and your membershave different interest and only read a small subset of the issues.A good context would be to use the separation that are made in eachcountries/region/local government departments.”If the issues are only of interest to a relatively small subset,then the decision should be made at that subset level and not at theoverall communty level. This is precisely the point. Issues thatconcerns less than 25% of the total membership should not bother theentire membership. However, there could be voting at that subsetlevel.For instance, national issues would be voted on by all theeligible voters in the country whereas local issues could be voted onby the citizens of that locality (the subset) adopting similardecision-making processes.Best RegardsEricPether Sorling <pether_sorling@…> wrote:politics@yahoogroups.com, lpc1998 <lpc1998@> wrote:-In top-25% ofPether:—From your website: 1Initiative EndorsementQualified initiative proposals to be endorsed by not less thancommunitythe membership.—This could be rule based so that each member that joins themembers,will be able to influence how much endorsement that is needed.Eric:If an issue does not have the endorsement of 25% of theatthen it could not be reasonably expected to have 50% + 1 supportofthe poll. This filtering is designed to clear out many ballotingthanissues that have no fair chance of gaining the support of a truemajority of the members so as not to waste unnecessarily themembers’ time and efforts at the polls.This reasoning assumes that most of the members reads the proposedissues, but if the issues are different categories and your membershave different interest and only read a small subset of the issues.A good context would be to use the separation that are made in eachcountries/region/local government departments.Pether:—From your website:Action:Initiative VotingAn initiative proposal that has the required majority (not lessService.50% + 1) shall be adopted.—The 50 % majority decision could also be decided someway by thecommunity members.Eric:Aren’t the voters the members themselves?Yes, but just questioned the fact that you assumed that all voterswant to make decision using simple majority.Kind regardsPether————————————————-YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit 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—No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/271 – Release Date: 28.2.2006
Yahoo! Groups Links
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Markus,
Dear KarlI finally read this article about the voting system. This system canfunction very good in a party which is a simple entity consistingof few
individuals of similar interest to address major problems andissues. But,
can it function on a higer level? What if the party wins theelections and
starts “ruling” the country with such a system? The fundamentalproblem is
that the minor problems will never get enough popularity to create adecision.K: -Well do you see a better incitament with a normal representative system? It can still be a big problem to raise opinion enough to get the ears of the politicians.
And they do, but with high filtering and slow brains.
If the people could handle it directly hughe gains in effectivity
would be seen when it comes to raise opinion.
One part of it is that the debate will move from “supervising” news
media to preemptive discussions.
And once there is some kind of consensus and somebody thinks that a
proposal have enough quality to tbe voted about, he/she will start a
vote about it.
And when it’s there more voters will see it since it will pop up
as “newcomers”.
Some of them will vote and even more will se the proposal since it
has gained support over their blocking level.
Some voters will become mad about the new stupid way of wasting money
or whatever and the issue will be more debated in the forums.
This will lead to more attention from media and other actors.
More and more will think about it and the snowball is in movement.
This is: IF the issue concerns enough people.
Other things might never be popular enough because they are just not
a proper issue on the level in question (for instance the riksdagen
in Sweden).
It could be a local road in a city or something.
In these cases, just as today, the issue will have to be decided
locally instead.
And I find that sound since the rule of selfdetermination should
stand above most rules.
There is basically not so much difference between AD-system and todays represenatative system when it comes to small issues and the problem of getting them on the agenda.
The second problem are non-trivial and urgent situations where a
fast decision is needed, e.g. a terrorist attack or even worse:war. Untill
a proposal gets enough popularity to be transformed into a decisionand thus
into action manny people can get hurt. Is there any mechanism toget rid of
this problems?K: -Yes, AD-system would still employ leaders for defence, police etc. We also see need for a head of state, at least until all other states ar direct democracies.
We had a nightmare here in Sweden with stupid and lame politicians,
doing nothing for swedish victims of the tsunami in Thailand.
With a responsible emplyee as they had in Italy you could see the
differerence.
All Italian survivors were home before the politicians had sent a
single plane with medical equpiment from Sweden…
The one to be replaced are the conventional politicians, didn’t you know?
The leaders needed would be voted for and they in turn will have
their budgets for empying the rest.
Just as today.
The only differnce might be that we should have a good and quick
system for how to remove insane or corrupt leaders with still good
enough emplyment laws etc.
This have to be decided in detail once an AD-party has their own
majority, not now..
BR/
Karl
Best regardsMarkus Schatten, dipl. inf.Faculty of Organization and Informatics,Varazdin, Croatiae-mail: markus.schatten@…
Yahoo! Groups Links
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Improved look, particularly the voting and writing part. Long posts and lists now truncated. Permanent login. Positioned elements. Search form (though google).
Anybody willing to test?
You all already have a login, your pseudo is your mail’s name!
echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
+1
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
+1
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
+1
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
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
+1
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
+1
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
+1
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)
+1
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
+1
New discussion
Answer
Why do some fear Direct Democracy?
Why is Direct Democracy so bad? Isn’t Switzerland the most Direct Democratic country we have around? Isn’t it a good example for DD?
Oh, and I use this definition of “Direct Democracy”:“http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct_democracy&oldid=48055730”
(The lemming word does bring some meaning home, but after a while I dislike being called over and over and over again a lemming. I dislike that my friends, my family, my coworkers, are called lemmings.
Same with mob or any other insulting word)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
The lemming talk is bullshit.
It can be said for any democratic system.
The AD system can handle it and erase it.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
ec: Why do some fear Direct Democracy? Why is Direct Democracy so bad?
-M: Because time and time again people show themselves to be suckers to the powers that be.
ec: Isn’t Switzerland the most Direct Democratic country we have around? Isn’t it a good example for DD?
-M: No, because they aren’t a DD.
ec: (The lemming word does bring some meaning home, but after a while I dislike being called over and over and over again a lemming. I dislike that my friends, my family, my coworkers, are called lemmings. Same with mob or any other insulting word) echarp
-M: I never called you nor those that you know lemmings, but the chances are you and most of them are lemmings.(But most can change, especially when given non-lemming role models.)
Are you a lemming? How would you know if you are or not? If so, what would you do to change?
mange: The lemming talk is bullshit. It can be said for any democratic system.
The AD system can handle it and erase it
-M: Lets see it demonstrated at a community level of 200 or more.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:54:47PM -0700, Mark wrote:
And representatives don’t? I’ve been around, and lobbies or simply money can and do change the way our representatives act!!!ec: Why do some fear Direct Democracy? Why is Direct Democracy so bad?-M: Because time and time again people show themselves to be suckers tothe powers that be.
You are ideologically driven.
Can’t you read? “The most Direct Democratic country we have around”. I do not claim that it is a Direct Democracy.ec: Isn’t Switzerland the most Direct Democratic country we have around? Isn’t it a good example for DD?-M: No, because they aren’t a DD.
Many consider Switzerland as a very successful example of many DD principles. What do you say about it?
-M: I never called you nor those that you know lemmings, but thechances are you and most of them are lemmings.(But most can change,especially when given non-lemming role models.)Are you a lemming? How would you know if you are or not? If so, whatwould you do to change?
You are using a deprecatory word to describe the largest part of humanity, me included.
What if I am to call all elitists “snobs” or even “pricks”? Would you appreciate and consider yourself one? :-)
(and I use the commonly accepted definition of elitist, “one who promote elitism”. You still have to show me some online examples of your usage)
-M: Lets see it demonstrated at a community level of 200 or more.
Athene or Switzerland.
Any referendum is a Direct Democratic institution. Are they not valid and interesting?
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
[…]
-M: Because time and time again people show themselves to be suckers to the powers that be.
ec: And representatives don’t? I’ve been around, and lobbies or simply money can and do change the way our representatives act!!! You are ideologically driven.-M: This is lemming-rep-democracy. This shows the lemminghood of the people – lemmings electing those that are less lemmings, but are still lemmings. You are backing my case.
SD2 is for filtering away as much lemminghood as possible.
ec: Isn’t Switzerland the most Direct Democratic country we have around? Isn’t it a good example for DD?
-M: No, because they aren’t a DD.
ec: Can’t you read? “The most Direct Democratic country we have around”. I do not claim that it is a Direct Democracy. Many consider Switzerland as a very successful example of many DD
principles. What do you say about it?
-M: Its still a rep-democracy, so I don’t see this as a test. We have lots of referendums here(I am in the most DD jurisdiction of the USA) and we have lemmings voting on their stupid lemming projects, like a lemming stadium where the lemmings can watch their stupid lemming ball games, and futhur entrench their lemminghood.
-M: I never called you nor those that you know lemmings, but thechances are you and most of them are lemmings.(But most can change,especially when given non-lemming role models.)Are you a lemming? How would you know if you are or not? If so, whatwould you do to change?
ec: You are using a deprecatory word to describe the largest part of
humanity, me included.
-M: I didn’t see you answer the questions. Are you avoiding the TRUTH like a lemming?
ec: What if I am to call all elitists “snobs” or even “pricks”? Would you
appreciate and consider yourself one? :-)
-M: If I was one, what would you do about it? Would you defeat me in a debate?
ec: (and I use the commonly accepted definition of elitist, "one who promote
elitism". You still have to show me some online examples of your usage)
-M: I have said that we both are elitist, because we advocate differing
philosopical positions.
I am elitely elitist, and you are elitely anti-elitist.
-M: Lets see it demonstrated at a community level of 200 or more.
ec: Athene…
-M: No, this was a representitve democracy because the male landowners were considered representitives of their workers, tenents, women and children. This was <50% of the population, so they were either a rep-democracy or an oligarchy.
ec:..or Switzerland.
-M: No, they have representitives.
ec: Any referendum is a Direct Democratic institution.
-M: Its not an institution, its a process that usually operates under the instituton of rep-democracy.
ec: Are they not valid and interesting?
-M: Valid? Compared to what, an oppressive dictatorship?
And definatly no more interesting than polling.
The lemmings are of little interest.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:38:14PM -0700, Mark wrote:
-M: I didn’t see you answer the questions.Are you avoiding the TRUTH like a lemming?I am part of the common people, do that mean you will keep insulting me?
Ok, you have a choice, do you want me to call you a “snob” or a “prick”?
You choose. Do no try to dodge the answer, just reply! Snob or prick?
You are funny, can’t make your way out of a touristic guide or a dictionary definition, but funny.ec: What if I am to call all elitists “snobs” or even “pricks”? Would youappreciate and consider yourself one? :-)-M: If I was one, what would you do about it?Would you defeat me in a debate?
-M: I have said that we both are elitist, because we advocate differingphilosopical positions.I am elitely elitist, and you are elitely anti-elitist.
It’s simple, to show how wrong I am, show me online usage of that word that confirm your opinion. The most and of best quality (dictionary, encyclopedia, linguists forum, …), the better.
I will repeat myself again using a simple example:
So, are you a prick or a snob?
The snobs and pricks would promote a system which make sure the common people are not directly involved in their political life. They will focus on some sort of representatives who will, supposedly, choose the best for the best of us all.
They will know how I should manage my life, and will make sure I do it properly. If they are elites chosen in a very indirect and obscure fashion, then they would appear as our “ho so benevolent” directors, ones we could never have heard about.
They will decide for us.
I want to empower people, to give us the responsibility of our choices. Even if some of those choices could lead to bad consequences because this is is what responsibility is about!
Having only nannies (aka representatives) would take away our responsibilities, they would keep us as babies for whom everything is decided “for the best”.
Do read, if you knew about history, you would understand why oligarchy was not Athenian democracy. They in fact had two “oligarchic” revolutions which were at the opposite of their ideals.ec: Athene…-M: No, this was a representitve democracy because the male landownerswere considered representitives of their workers, tenents, women andchildren. This was <50% of the population, so they were either arep-democracy or an oligarchy.
As far as representativeness, they did not give a damn about it! They were misogynistic imperialistic slave owners.
None the less, they are at the core of our modern conceptions of democracy.
See, this is why I stated that they are the most Direct Democratic country around, they are not just a DD. Do you see the difference?ec:..or Switzerland.-M: No, they have representitives.
Do you agree that sometimes a thing can be neither black nor white, but in between?
Any country around, even the Athenians in that old time, have some kind of representatives (or delegates). But some are more direct than indirect.
You promote elitism through an algo designed to rank pages according to the links they contain, do you even know what I promote? Do you read and understand what I write and promote?
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
-M: I didn’t see you answer the questions. Are you avoiding the TRUTH like a lemming?
ec: I am part of the common people, do that mean you will keep insulting me?
-M: I asked: “Are you a lemming? How would you know if you are or not? If so, what would you do to change?”
I asked at post #3, this is post #9. Will you answer, or keep DODGING?
ec: Ok, you have a choice, do you want me to call you a “snob” or a “prick”?
You choose. Do no try to dodge the answer, just reply! Snob or prick?
-M: I am not calling you anything.
ec: What if I am to call all elitists “snobs” or even “pricks”? Would you appreciate and consider yourself one? :-)
-M: If I was one, what would you do about it? Would you defeat me in a debate?
ec: You are funny, can’t make your way out of a touristic guide or a dictionary definition, but funny.
-M: Well? Are you going to defeat me? Yes/no?
-M: I have said that we both are elitist, because we advocate differing philosopical positions. I am elitely elitist, and you are elitely anti-elitist.
ec: It’s simple, to show how wrong I am, show me online usage of that word that confirm your opinion. The most and of best quality (dictionary,
encyclopedia, linguists forum, …), the better. I will repeat myself again using a simple example:
-M: The schoolboy is elitist because he is advocating a position that
differs from others.
Since this is an already uncontended point of mine,
it appears that you are using this as a DODGE from the fact that you
are being ELITELY ANTI-ELITIST.
ec: So, are you a prick or a snob? The snobs and pricks would promote a system which make sure the common
people are not directly involved in their political life.
M: Agreed. Fortunately with SD2, a person becomes a representitive
with only ONE vote from someone else. Everyone would either be a
representitive or would know several representitives. This would
greatly encourage political activism. :)
ec: They will focus on some sort of representatives who will, supposedly, choose the best for the best of us all.
-M: Even DD is RD beccause the 50%+1 is hoped to be representitive of
the 50%-1, which it is not.
By contrast, SD2 represents 100%.
The DDers seem to want the lemmings to choose what is best for all of
us.
ec: They will know how I should manage my life, and will make sure I do it
properly.
-M: Or they may keep the lemmings from managing your life.
ec: If they are elites chosen in a very indirect and obscure fashion, then they would appear as our “ho so benevolent” directors,
ones we could never have heard about. They will decide for us.
-M: Or they may keep the lemmings from deciding for us.
ec: I want to empower people, to give us the responsibility of our choices. Even if some of those choices could lead to bad consequences because
this is is what responsibility is about!
-M: Off the cliff the lemmings go.
ec: Having only nannies (aka representatives) would take away our responsibilities, they would keep us as babies for whom everything is
decided “for the best”.
-M: Politicly, the lemmings are babies, and they prove it time and time again.
ec: Athene…
-M: No, this was a representitve democracy because the male landownerswere considered representitives of their workers, tenents, women andchildren. This was <50% of the population, so they were either arep-democracy or an oligarchy.
ec: Do read, if you knew about history, you would understand why oligarchy was not Athenian democracy. They in fact had two “oligarchic”
revolutions which were at the opposite of their ideals.
-M: Then is was another form of oligarchy.
ec: As far as representativeness, they did not give a damn about it! They were misogynistic imperialistic slave owners.
-M: The only way they can call themselves ‘democracy’ is if they consider themselves representitives of the oppressed. I don’t think they were reps, therefore I call them an ‘oligarchy’.
ec: None the less, they are at the core of our modern conceptions of democracy.
-M: They were influential, but were not a democracy.
[…]
ec: You promote elitism through an algo designed to rank pages according tothe links they contain, do you even know what I promote? Do you read and
-M: You promote Lemmingism via contradiction and the lemming-algorithm.
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
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:19:40PM -0700, Mark wrote:
-M: Well? Are you going to defeat me? Yes/no?I humbly bow to the force of your logic and will try not to raise your ire.
You win. I lose.
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
-M: Well? Are you going to defeat me? Yes/no?
ec: I humbly bow to the force of your logic and will try not to raise your ire. You win. I lose.
-M: Emmanuel,
At first I thought you were doing a sarchastic surrender as a dodge
tactic.
It appears now that you are being a SPORT.
And thank you for joining sd-2. Others are welcome to join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
“You win. I lose” – I may win, but you don’t lose because you have
shown yourself to be a SPORT.
And if you are LEARNING from me, then you are the big WINNER.
So ROCK ON!
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
New discussion
Answer
I shall dodge if I so wish, but most of all whenever someone is boasting and asking for a fight like a drunken student.
Your shock and awe and oh so marvellous tactics have some more effects: they get boring.
The rhetorical art is about persuasion, not running in circles and tending to your own vanity. You are displaying your fear of the common people and your snobbery. You display your emotions and your ego, not reason.
And what a pleasure to discuss centrality algorithms! To explore the intricacies of ranks and make sure no common mortal but the chosen few, the king philosophers, the great marks among us, shall lead every body else! :-(
Let the mob elect its marks, and surely with such and such conditions and such and such rules, conditions and rules that our natural aristocrats will write, we can be sure we won’t ever have any mob rule!
Responsibility? Empowerment? Participation? Wisdom of the crowds? Nah, you won’t have any of that, you just repeat and repeat ad nausea that we, the people, are all lemmings and not worthy of our own life.
Boring and preposterous
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:11:29PM 0700, Mark wrote:
~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
--M: Well? Are you going to defeat me? Yes/no?
ec: I humbly bow to the force of your logic and will try not to raise your ire. You win. I lose.
-M: Emmanuel,At first I thought you were doing a sarchastic surrender as a dodgetactic.~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
ec: I shall dodge if I so wish, but most of all whenever someone is boasting
and asking for a fight like a drunken student.
-M: I said: “Emmanuel, At first I thought you were doing a sarchastic
surrender as a dodge
tactic. It appears now that you are being a SPORT.”
So are you being a sport or a dodger?
ec: Your shock and awe and oh so marvellous tactics have some more effects: they get boring.
-M: I am not here to entertain, I am here to inform.
ec: The rhetorical art is about persuasion,…
-M: I can’t pursuade the unpersuadable…so my only task is to win by the established rule structures.
ec:…not running in circles and tending to your own vanity.
-M: I am not running in circles nor being vain. Maybe your lack of having to give examples shows your own circles and vanity.
ec: You are displaying your fear of the common people and your snobbery.
-M: Maybe your lack of examples shows your own fear and snobbery.
ec: You display your emotions and your ego, not reason.
-M: Maybe your lack of examples shows your own ego and lack of reason.
ec: And what a pleasure to discuss centrality algorithms! To explore the intricacies of ranks and make sure no common mortal but the chosen few, the king philosophers, the great marks among us, shall lead every body else! :-(
-M: And you would rather Socrates have been killed by the lemmings than having led them.
ec: Let the mob elect its marks, and surely with such and such conditions and such and such rules, conditions and rules that our natural aristocrats will write, we can be sure we won’t ever have any mob rule!
-M: And you would prefer mob rule. “Let the guillotine party commence!”
ec: Responsibility? Empowerment? Participation? Wisdom of the crowds? Nah, you won’t have any of that,..
-M: Yes I do, because I want the people to provide the voting inputs. I also encourage participation by having it so that a person is a representitive even by recieving only one vote from someone else.
ec:…you just repeat and repeat ad nausea that we, the people, are all lemmings…
-M: Bullshit! I only said that MOST are lemmings(no one has disagreed with me yet). This is a big difference because I believe in the fact that people have the power to overcome their lemmingness.
By contrast, you want votes drowned in a sea of arbitrariness and lemminghood.
ec:..and not worthy of our own life. Boring and preposterous
-M: BS, your lemming-algorithm makes it so that the 50%-1 have NO SAY. By contrast, I represent 100%.
This is a CENTRAL POINT that you continually DODGE! You are the bad guy, not me.
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 make an exception and comments Marks posting (again) about the L-word:
ec:…you just repeat and repeat ad nausea that we, the people, are all lemmings…
-M: Bullshit! I only said that MOST are lemmings(no one has disagreed with me yet). This is a big difference because I believe in the fact that people have the power to overcome their lemmingness.
By contrast, you want votes drowned in a sea of arbitrariness and lemminghood.
MG:- Yes, you have suggested at least that all are lmmings.
And many including me have disagreed.
At least I can see some ligth in your tunnel, Mark; You beleive that
people have the power to overcome their L-ness.
O, soo good! Can we then stop arguing if L-ness is a problem for DD or
not?
Beacuse no one is arguing here against that there might be a “follow
John” effect in all proposed systems.
Therefore it’s not an interesting issue when discussing DD/RD.
You have over and over failed to prove or even made beleivable that
there is more risk for L-ness with DD than with RD.
Start to use your energy for something 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
mG: I make an exception and comments Marks posting (again) about the L-word:
-M: “We can’t have the truth.” says Karl?
ec:…you just repeat and repeat ad nausea that we, the people, are all lemmings…
-M: Bullshit! I only said that MOST are lemmings(no one has disagreed with me yet). This is a big difference because I believe in the fact that people have the power to overcome their lemmingness. By contrast, you want votes drowned in a sea of arbitrariness and
lemminghood.
mG:- Yes, you have suggested at least that all are lmmings.
-M: Where? Find a quote.
mG: And many including me have disagreed.
-M: Where? Again, find a quote.
mG: At least I can see some ligth in your tunnel, Mark; You beleive that people have the power to overcome their L-ness.
O, soo good! Can we then stop arguing if L-ness is a problem for DD or not?
-M: L-ness will always be a problem no matter how culturally-advanced
society gets.
SD2 creates a situation where non-L role models are identified, so as
to lead the masses to the light of non-L-hood.
mG: Beacuse no one is arguing here against that there might be a “follow John” effect in all proposed systems.
Therefore it’s not an interesting issue when discussing DD/RD. You have over and over failed to prove or even made beleivable that there is more risk for L-ness with DD than with RD. Start to use your energy for something else.
-M: Go to your nearest ‘Department of Motor Vehicles’ – look and the ‘Joe Sixpack’ and ‘Jane Sixpack’ standing in line and ask yourself: “Do I want these people to rule me?” There is your LEMMINGHOOD. The proof is with your everyday experience with common people.
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
-This is not really leading to anything.
Anyway, I stop this “debate” here and start from now to implement the
rules under:
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/157428f…
From now on I will only comment singel issue in separated threads.
If there are more than one issue I will choose which one to comment and
leave the other until it’s presented in a separate thread.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
mG-This is not really leading to anything.
-M: Yes it is, it is leading to the inevitable DEMISE of your DD-Lemmingism ideology.
mG: Anyway, I stop this “debate” here and start from now to implement the
rules under: http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/157428f…
-M: I clicked on it and I didn’t see anything.
mG: From now on I will only comment singel issue in separated threads. If there are more than one issue I will choose which one to comment and
leave the other until it’s presented in a separate thread.
-M: Where are your threads? I don’t see any. Are you dodging again?
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
“How to improve commuinication on the list”
Don’t know why the previous post didn’t get the complete link.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
-1
Look mark, let me summarise it for you: I want to empower and give responsibility to the largest number. I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to diminish direct participation.
The very ideas of ranks and directors are contrary to what I want. Your concentration, your obsession shall I say, on high ranking and all powerful representatives appears like your ambition to become our next king philosopher (oh great mark, we shall worship thee, you are our great debater, your logic is no match to any mortal, and your philosophy shines through each of your words :).
I concentrate on issues, a hierarchy of issues, where each participant could delegate his voice(s) on each item onto someone else.
I don’t want Socrates to lead my life, I want everybody to be given the opportunity to lead their lives. I would like to produce tools that can be used to uplift each one.
You want to change my mind? Show me why “lemmings” should not participate while some “snobs/pricks” should be given all powers. Don’t just state it over and over and over again, demonstrate it!
Be careful, your command of history and vocabulary seem rather weak, french revolution is particularly not your strong point. Do read about girondins and jacobins, the convention, danton and robespierre. Oh, the fact that the terror only lasted one year and that France was in civil war and at war with most of Europe does not seem to disturb you, how silly of you…
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:08:19PM -0700, Mark wrote:
-M: BS, your lemming-algorithm makes it so that the 50%-1 have NOSAY. By contrast, I represent 100%.This is a CENTRAL POINT that you continually DODGE!What algorithm are you speaking about? Do you even know what I advocate?
You are the bad guy, not me.
I’m sorry to be so harsh on you…
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
ec:Look mark, let me summarise it for you: I want to empower and give
responsibility to the largest number.
-M: No you don’t. You want to give it to the 50%+1. I want to give the power to everyone.
ec: I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to diminish direct participation.
-M: I am opposed to YOUR scheme designed to diminish direct participation.
ec: The very ideas of ranks and directors are contrary to what I want.
-M: This is people being REWARDED for their participation – DUH!
ec: Your concentration, your obsession shall I say, on high ranking and all powerful representatives appears like your ambition to become our next king philosopher…
-M: Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself?
If not, then your position is not authoritative.
If so, then you are being contradictory.
ec:…(oh great mark, we shall worship thee, you are our great debater, your logic is no match to any mortal, and your philosophy shines through each of your words :).
-M: I do rock, as evidenced by my opponents’ dodge-monkeyism.
ec: I concentrate on issues, a hierarchy of issues, where each participant
could delegate his voice(s) on each item onto someone else.
-M: And if these delegates can also delegate, this creates a Markov
chain.
So what is your centrality algorithm?
ec: I don’t want Socrates to lead my life,…
-M: Then don’t have Socrates lead your life. My only concern is not having LEMMINGS lead our lives.
ec: I want everybody to be given the opportunity to lead their lives. I would like to produce tools that can be used to uplift each one.
-M: Then you should advocate SD2.
ec: You want to change my mind? Show me why “lemmings” should not
participate…
-M: Doink! Strawman. Lemmings SHOULD participate and should lose their lemminghood while rising in rank.
ec:..while some “snobs/pricks” should be given all powers.
-M: Not “snobs/pricks”, competent/trustworthy – they should be given power because they represent the 100%.
-M: BS, your lemming-algorithm makes it so that the 50%-1 have NO SAY. By contrast, I represent 100%. This is a CENTRAL POINT that you continually DODGE!
ec: What algorithm are you speaking about? Do you even know what I advocate?
-M: You advocate the 50%+1 lemming-algorithm. You do a combination of DD and RD, but its still the lemming-algorithm.
M: You are the bad guy, not me.
ec: I’m sorry to be so harsh on you…
-M: You are harsh on yourself when you dodge relevant points.
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
Ok, let me try again:
I want to allow everybody to directly vote on each proposition. This action will, in my opinion, be a huge point toward acceptance of those propositions. This is a matter of responsibility, a group decides and will accept the consequences of its decisions.
This is also a matter of personal involvement, all those interested can be heard and their voice will be counted, not just a few “snobs/pricks”.
You want a government of the few, I want a parliament of the many. Show me why the many should not have their voice heard (= counted)!!!
I do not want to be directed by snobs/pricks! Understand that?
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:16:35PM -0700, Mark wrote:
And what about ranks and directors?ec:Look mark, let me summarise it for you: I want to empower and giveresponsibility to the largest number.-M: No you don’t. You want to give it to the 50%+1. I want to givethe power to everyone.
Indirect transmission has always been less optimal than direct. Want to discuss that? Want to discuss entropy too?
Direct expression is stronger than indirect one. Ain’t that obvious even to you?
Let me rephrase for your education:ec: I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to diminish direct participation.-M: I am opposed to YOUR scheme designed to diminish directparticipation.
I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to discount most of those who could directly express themselves.
Stupidec: Your concentration, your obsession shall I say, on high ranking and all powerful representatives appears like your ambition to become our next king philosopher…-M: Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself?If not, then your position is not authoritative.If so, then you are being contradictory.
Of course I do not discount the fact that you might be entrapped into your own dialectic.
-M: I do rock, as evidenced by my opponents’ dodge-monkeyism.
Do keep boasting.
Again, what did you achieve in life?
Nice of you to finally understand one thing about what others can propose. Of course calling a “Markov chain” what is merely a directed graph does look like a bit of mathematical onanism.ec: I concentrate on issues, a hierarchy of issues, where each participantcould delegate his voice(s) on each item onto someone else.-M: And if these delegates can also delegate, this creates a Markovchain.
So what is your centrality algorithm?
One man one voice, ever heard about it?
Oh, how do your directors vote on things again? :)
Once more: I want no director or everybody to be a director!!! Not just the few chosen one.
-M: Doink! Strawman. Lemmings SHOULD participate and should lose theirlemminghood while rising in rank.
Again…. Show me why every voice expressed should not be directly counted? Show me that a referendum is a bad thing!!!
A prick is a giant irritation, a snob will make sure only him and the chosen few can enter their inner circle. In the course of their inter mingling, they shall produce huge amounts of winds…ec:..while some “snobs/pricks” should be given all powers.-M: Not “snobs/pricks”, competent/trustworthy – they should be givenpower because they represent the 100%.
I don’t want them to direct my life.
I accept that a group, where each expressed voice is counted, can write the rules that will manage its internal workings.
50%+1, and what about Condorcet or Borda? Aren’t you limited?-M: BS, your lemming-algorithm makes it so that the 50%-1 have NO SAY. By contrast, I represent 100%. This is a CENTRAL POINT that you continually DODGE!ec: What algorithm are you speaking about? Do you even know what I advocate?-M: You advocate the 50%+1 lemming-algorithm. You do a combination ofDD and RD, but its still the lemming-algorithm.
Can you tell me where the difference lies between the proxy delegate system and the page rank algo?
Do you have any idea how complex those things are to implement? I’ve been thinking about it since 1997, and am still having troubles with delegation cycles which look fine on paper, but are a bitch to manage. Of course I could just forbid them and only manage a nice tree…
Ok, let me show you where the difference is, well, except for the director and rank bullshits which I definitely hate:
I envision delegations as a way to alleviate the burden of voting on each and all possible propositions. The first mechanism is a simplification of the second, and should be more than enough.
Thus I will probably implement the first one, but the second one remain a possibility, if you code it or find someone willing to…
Did I say that this is complex and difficult?
Sorry, which world do you live in again? Mark’s world? Where to every boasting would be fighter every one should rise and applaud?M: You are the bad guy, not me.ec: I’m sorry to be so harsh on you…-M: You are harsh on yourself when you dodge relevant points.
You rise and applaud at yourself, your ego should be joyful of such a fan!
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
ec: Ok, let me try again: I want to allow everybody to directly vote on each proposition. This action will, in my opinion, be a huge point toward acceptance of those propositions. This is a matter of responsibility, a group decides and will accept the consequences of its decisions.
-M: I imagine that SD2-directors would usually want people to vote directly on issues.
ec: This is also a matter of personal involvement, all those interested can be heard and their voice will be counted, not just a few “snobs/pricks”.
-M: You also seem to want philosopher-kings, such as yourself, to rely on strawman attacks.
ec: You want a government of the few, I want a parliament of the many.
-M: No, you want government of the 50%+1. I want government of everyone who has recieved even ONE write in vote from someone else.
ec: Show me why the many should not have their voice heard (= counted)!!!
-M: No, you show me why the 50%-1 should have NO voice.
ec: I do not want to be directed by snobs/pricks! Understand that?
-M: If so, then why do you want to be directed by the snob/prick representitives of the 50%+1?
ec: Look mark, let me summarise it for you: I want to empower and give responsibility to the largest number.
-M: No you don’t. You want to give it to the 50%+1. I want to give the power to everyone.
ec: And what about ranks and directors?
-M: This rank is given by the people.
ec: Indirect transmission has always been less optimal than direct. Want to discuss that?
-M: This does relate to centrality algorithms – the MAIN topic that I have been wanting to discuss.
ec: Want to discuss entropy too? Direct expression is stronger than indirect one. Ain’t that obvious even
to you?
-M: There are goals and there are means to achieve goals - hopefully a voter and a representitive would be aligned in fundamental goals, but a statecraft-expert-representitive would have more knowledge in the means to acheive the goal – this is more direct because the expert is closer to the instruments of administration.
ec: I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to diminish direct participation.
-M: I am opposed to YOUR scheme designed to diminish direct participation.
ec: Let me rephrase for your education: I am fundamentally against any scheme designed to discount most of
those who could directly express themselves.
-M: No, your way AUTOMATICLY discounts anyone in the 50%-1, and waters down those in the 50%+1 in a sea of lemminghood. By contrast, with SD2, ALL minority opinion counts, and someone gains rank with only one vote from anyone.
ec: Your concentration, your obsession shall I say, on high ranking and all powerful representatives appears like your ambition to become our next king philosopher…
-M: Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself? If not, then your position is not authoritative.If so, then you are being contradictory.
ec: Stupid Of course I do not discount the fact that you might be entrapped into
your own dialectic.
-M: You just DODGED. The fact is you can’t take an authoritative position against authority without creating what is called a performative contradiction.
-M: I do rock, as evidenced by my opponents’ dodge-monkeyism.
ec: Do keep boasting. Again, what did you achieve in life?
-M:(You dodged again.)
ec: I concentrate on issues, a hierarchy of issues, where each participant could delegate his voice(s) on each item onto someone else.
-M: And if these delegates can also delegate, this creates a Markov chain.
ec: Nice of you to finally understand one thing about what others can propose. Of course calling a “Markov chain” what is merely a directed
graph does look like a bit of mathematical onanism.
-M: And? Is this a case against PageRank?(please don’t dodge.)
M: So what is your centrality algorithm?
ec: One man one voice, ever heard about it?
-M: We both have this. But you want to arbitrarily limit the Markov-chains, then DODGE your rationale.
ec: Oh, how do your directors vote on things again? :) Once more: I want no director or everybody to be a director!!! Not just
the few chosen one.
-M: No, you want only the 50%+1 to have a voice. You want lemmingism.
-M: Doink! Strawman. Lemmings SHOULD participate and should lose their lemminghood while rising in rank.
ec: Again…. Show me why every voice expressed should not be directly counted? Show me that a referendum is a bad thing!!!
-M: DUH, because it SHITS on the 50%-1!
ec:..while some “snobs/pricks” should be given all powers.
-M: Not “snobs/pricks”, competent/trustworthy – they should be given power because they represent the 100%.
ec: A prick is a giant irritation, a snob will make sure only him and the chosen few can enter their inner circle. In the course of their inter
mingling, they shall produce huge amounts of winds… I don’t want them to direct my life.
-M: Then have them keep the lemmings from directing your life.
ec: I accept that a group, where each expressed voice is counted, can write the rules that will manage its internal workings.
-M: Sounds more like SD2 than your lemming-oppressed-50%-1.
-M: BS, your lemming-algorithm makes it so that the 50%-1 have NO SAY. By contrast, I represent 100%. This is a CENTRAL POINT that you continually DODGE!
ec: What algorithm are you speaking about? Do you even know what I advocate?
-M: You advocate the 50%+1 lemming-algorithm. You do a combination of DD and RD, but its still the lemming-algorithm.
ec: 50%+1, and what about Condorcet or Borda? Aren’t you limited?
-M: These are still majoritarian more or less, so they are still
philosophicly the same as 50%+1.
And they are ALL indegree based. Lemmingness.
ec: Can you tell me where the difference lies between the proxy delegate system and the page rank algo?
-M: With PageRank, there is no arbitrary limit to the depth of the
Markov chain.
This is why I think that PageRank is the least arbitrary of ALL
ALGORITHMS.
ec: Do you have any idea how complex those things are to implement? I’ve been thinking about it since 1997, and am still having troubles with
delegation cycles which look fine on paper, but are a bitch to manage. Of course I could just forbid them and only manage a nice tree…
-M: Let Pagerank do all of the work.
ec: Ok, let me show you where the difference is, well, except for the director and rank bullshits which I definitely hate:
-M: One point missed – this voting power doesn’t arbitrarily stop at this first order person, but it continues on to other delegates potentially ad infinitum(unless it finds a loop, which it does with real world data) – the idea here is to preserve minority voting power as much as possible.
ec: I envision delegations as a way to alleviate the burden of voting on each and all possible propositions. The first mechanism is a
simplification of the second, and should be more than enough. Thus I will probably implement the first one, but the second one remain a possibility, if you code it or find someone willing to… Did I say that this is complex and difficult?
-M: SD2 would allow for your system. I imagine that directors would usually want people to vote on all issues, and would weight each issue by its popular rank and by its PageRank. If I was a director, I would usually hold an issue in debate until the popular rank was on the same side of an issue as the PageRank.
M: You are the bad guy, not me.
ec: I’m sorry to be so harsh on you…
-M: You are harsh on yourself when you dodge relevant points.
ec: Sorry, which world do you live in again? Mark’s world?
-M: Yes, I live in Mark’s world just like you live in Emmanuel’s world.
ec: Where to every boasting would be fighter every one should rise and applaud?
-M: No, but there should be appaluse when I get you to DODGE like the dodge-monkey that you are.
ec: You rise and applaud at yourself, your ego should be joyful of such a fan!
-M: I do applaud myself for whupping the dodge-monkey that you are for
your own good.
But you lack the gratitude to thank me because of you fat dodge-monkey
ego.
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
2. I achieved spiritual awakening.
Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing!!!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
M: 2. I achieved spiritual awakening.
ec: Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing!!!
-M: I had my awakening August 1997. Do you know anyone who has had a spiritual awakening? Have you ever heard of a kundalini awakening?
As for our different systems, our similarities are:
Our differences are:
The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitve voting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote counted populisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.
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
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 01:04:06PM -0700, Mark wrote:
No, I’m looking it up on the net right now.M: 2. I achieved spiritual awakening.ec: Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing!!!-M: I had my awakening August 1997.Do you know anyone who has had a spiritual awakening?Have you ever heard of a kundalini awakening?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini
Ok. I’m atheist, agnostic and very much a materialist. But every one is free.
As for our different systems, our similarities are:1. We both have both legislative representitives and administrators.2. We both have accumulative voting.
What power do administrators hold in a P2P system? (I have one idea or two about that, and the ways to circumvent them)
Our differences are:1. You have manditory referendums and optional representitives2. I have optional referendums and manditory representitves.3. You have singular representitve voting.4. I have multiple representitve voting.
I don’t think this is quite correct:
The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.
All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegate or not.
To me, and let me stress this to me, counting votes is not populist, but democratic. One man one voice…
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
-M: I had my awakening August 1997.Do you know anyone who has had a spiritual awakening?Have you ever heard of a kundalini awakening?
ec: No, I’m looking it up on the net right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini Ok. I’m atheist, agnostic and very much a materialist. But every one is free.
-M: Nice article. I debate against materialists also.
M: As for our different systems, our similarities are:1. We both have both legislative representitives and administrators.2. We both have accumulative voting.
ec: What power do administrators hold in a P2P system? (I have one idea or
two about that, and the ways to circumvent them)
-M: For the top administrators, they would at least be focal points for
debate to occur around.
They would at least have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
Our differences are:1. You have manditory referendums and optional representitives2. I have optional referendums and manditory representitves.3. You have singular representitve voting.4. I have multiple representitve voting.
ec: I don’t think this is quite correct:
-M: There would be at least one person voting for a delegate, so there
would be delegates.
Whether these delegates have more than 50% of the voting power is
another issue.
And before I said that there is either RD or DD, and no mixed systems. I have changed my position: EC-D is ‘mixed’ when delegates have less than 50% of the voting power – otherwise EC-D is RD.
ec: * as many referendums and delegations as there are issues
-M: Yes, and one of those issues would be central administration by which specific issues would be administered under.
Central administration is unavoidable, and I see EC-D evolving into an SD2 like structure.
M: The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.
ec: All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegate
or not.
-M: SD2 allows for having an issue BOTH voted on, and delegated.
When both conditions occur, an issue-vote can be analyzed both
populisticly and with PageRank.
This is a reason why I make the delegation manditory.
ec: To me, and let me stress this to me, counting votes is not populist, but democratic. One man one voice…
-M: Agreed, your accumulative voting is rank-based and elitist. You are for lemming-filtering like me, so rock on!
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
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 09:38:29AM -0700, Mark wrote:
-M: Nice article. I debate against materialists also.What is your position? Dualist? (yes this is off topic, but I’m nonetheless interested).
Care to elaborate? I don’t know what this is.M: As for our different systems, our similarities are:1. We both have both legislative representitives and administrators.2. We both have accumulative voting.ec: What power do administrators hold in a P2P system? (I have one idea ortwo about that, and the ways to circumvent them)-M: For the top administrators, they would at least be focal points fordebate to occur around.They would at least have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
Yes, we both have accumulative voting, but the delegates I speak are ad hoc and potentially different on every issue, while you structure them in ranks and directors. Two things I definitely don’t want.
This is a mix of direct and indirect democracy, yes. The indirect part merely here as a compromise to the burdens of real life, it is not here to bring elitism (although there is that possibility, yes).Our differences are:1. You have manditory referendums and optional representitives2. I have optional referendums and manditory representitves.3. You have singular representitve voting.4. I have multiple representitve voting.ec: I don’t think this is quite correct:
- referendums and delegates are both optional-M: There would be at least one person voting for a delegate, so therewould be delegates.Whether these delegates have more than 50% of the voting power isanother issue.And before I said that there is either RD or DD, and no mixed systems.I have changed my position: EC-D is ‘mixed’ when delegates have lessthan 50% of the voting power – otherwise EC-D is RD.
I’m thinking about a system designed to manage issues in a manner similar to a parliament. You are thinking about a system designed to generate a government, fine by me really, but I consider that the parliament can manage it just as well if not better.
Plus you will always need a parliament in a democracy, don’t you agree?
Can you give me an example? One that pertains to the decision making process itself, its security or such, would be best.ec: * as many referendums and delegations as there are issues-M: Yes, and one of those issues would be central administration bywhich specific issues would be administered under.Central administration is unavoidable, and I see EC-D evolving into anSD2 like structure.
And anyway, if it’s managed as a matter of issues, where is the problem?
The very word mandatory is a signal that something is wrong.M: The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.ec: All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegateor not.-M: SD2 allows for having an issue BOTH voted on, and delegated.When both conditions occur, an issue-vote can be analyzed bothpopulisticly and with PageRank.This is a reason why I make the delegation manditory.
Your reason for having mandatory delegations is so that you can use page rank, ain’t that slightly shaky ground?
Ranks? Where do you see them? Some people will represent more than some others on some issues, but I don’t consider that as a rank.ec: To me, and let me stress this to me, counting votes is not populist, but democratic. One man one voice…-M: Agreed, your accumulative voting is rank-based and elitist.
You are for lemming-filtering like me, so rock on!
Sorry, but your very use of derogatory words is a continuing irritation.
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
-M: Nice article. I debate against materialists also.
ec: What is your position? Dualist? (yes this is off topic, but I’m nonetheless interested).
-M: I am a non-dualist. If you want to continue at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deathtoreligion/
…I would be more than happy to debate you.
M: As for our different systems, our similarities are:1. We both have both legislative representitives and administrators.2. We both have accumulative voting.
ec: What power do administrators hold in a P2P system? (I have one idea or two about that, and the ways to circumvent them)
-M: For the top administrators, they would at least be focal points fordebate to occur around. They would at least have ‘bully pulpit’ power.
ec: Care to elaborate? I don’t know what this is.
-M: If they had a high position of government, there would be public channels of communication with them. Media would pay close attention.
“For XYZ to occur, I need ABC legislation.” he would say.
This would be very powerful.
ec: Yes, we both have accumulative voting, but the delegates I speak are ad
hoc and potentially different on every issue, while you structure them in ranks and directors. Two things I definitely don’t want.
-M: You may not want them, but you will get them. Voting on the most general issues will create statecraft ranking. The top ranked will find each other and build a team – and they will be noticed.
Our differences are:1. You have manditory referendums and optional representitives2. I have optional referendums and manditory representitves.3. You have singular representitve voting.4. I have multiple representitve voting.
ec: I don’t think this is quite correct:
- referendums and delegates are both optional
-M: There would be at least one person voting for a delegate, so therewould be delegates. Whether these delegates have more than 50% of the voting power isanother issue. And before I said that there is either RD or DD, and no mixed systems.I have changed my position: EC-D is ‘mixed’ when delegates have lessthan 50% of the voting power – otherwise EC-D is RD.
ec: This is a mix of direct and indirect democracy, yes. The indirect part
merely here as a compromise to the burdens of real life, it is not here
to bring elitism (although there is that possibility, yes).
-M: I think that elitism is how it would evolve in practice. I see myself more philosophicly and theoreticly aligned with EC-D than I see you alighned with it.
ec: I’m thinking about a system designed to manage issues in a manner
similar to a parliament. You are thinking about a system designed to generate a government, fine by me really, but I consider that the parliament can manage it just as well if not better.
-M: A parliament is part of a govenment. And I think that SD2 would
generate both.
Maybe you are seeing differentiations that I am not seeing.
ec: Plus you will always need a parliament in a democracy, don’t you agree?
-M: SD2 is parliamentarian isn’t it? The only time it wouldn’t be is under these two conditions:
This would be strange, and I don’t see this happening in the real world.
ec: * as many referendums and delegations as there are issues
-M: Yes, and one of those issues would be central administration by which specific issues would be administered under. Central administration is unavoidable, and I see EC-D evolving into an SD2 like structure.
ec: Can you give me an example? One that pertains to the decision making process itself, its security or such, would be best. And anyway, if it’s managed as a matter of issues, where is the problem?
-M: The only problem is that you seem to advocating a system that would
naturally evolve into SD2.
Constitutional issues are general issues, and those delegated would
have constitutional ranking.
These would be ad hoc directors who would naturally want to formallize
their positions, and understandably would make such a push. Give them
directorships, but limit their individual voting powers to 20% if that
is what the people want.
M: The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.
ec: All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegateor not.
-M: SD2 allows for having an issue BOTH voted on, and delegated. When both conditions occur, an issue-vote can be analyzed both populisticly and with PageRank. This is a reason why I make the delegation manditory.
ec: The very word mandatory is a signal that something is wrong.-M: All constraints in EC-D are manditory, even the non-manditory constraints are manditory because the non-manditoriness is itself manditory.
ec: Your reason for having mandatory delegations is so that you can use page rank, ain’t that slightly shaky ground?
-M: What is more egotistical, me deciding on an issue, or delegating someone else to decide on an issue?
I say build a voting system around the least egotistical choice.
And I did say the the fundamental unit of society is three people: two to make agreements, and a third to act as a tie-breaker during disagreements.
This third person ideally is delegated. SD2 takes this fundamental principle of delegation and extends it to its logical limit.
ec: To me, and let me stress this to me, counting votes is not populist, but democratic. One man one voice…
-M: Agreed, your accumulative voting is rank-based and elitist.
ec: Ranks? Where do you see them? Some people will represent more than some others on some issues, but I don’t consider that as a rank.
-M: They are ranks whether you see them or not.
Q: “Who should we talk to about issue X?”
A: “Well obviously whoever got the most vote accumulation.”
This sounds like rank to me.
M: You are for lemming-filtering like me, so rock on!
ec: Sorry, but your very use of derogatory words is a continuing irritation.
-M: Then stop being irritated by it. Change. Acknowledge the truth.
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
Wow, one post where you are not directly insulting, quite a change!
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 08:27:12PM -0000, Mark wrote:
-M: I am a non-dualist. If you want to continue at:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deathtoreligion/…I would be more than happy to debate you.I wouldn’t, because you are an egotistic illogical elitist.
Those irritating abilities of yours make it so that I’d rather not talk to you. And I’m more and more going to refrain responding to you whenever you use derogatory terms.
Easy, I don’t use ranks, I don’t model ranks, I don’t conceptualise using ranks, there are no ranks. That some are the delegates of more voices than others does not imply ranks.ec: Yes, we both have accumulative voting, but the delegates I speak are adhoc and potentially different on every issue, while you structure themin ranks and directors. Two things I definitely don’t want.-M: You may not want them, but you will get them. Voting on the mostgeneral issues will create statecraft ranking. The top ranked will findeach other and build a team – and they will be noticed.
But I’m not worried, you can construct any baseless assumption you wish, I won’t stop you. Do say that every delegated voice create a rank or something just as silly.
Great. Yet I only describe things using simple concepts and optional actions.ec: This is a mix of direct and indirect democracy, yes. The indirect partmerely here as a compromise to the burdens of real life, it is not hereto bring elitism (although there is that possibility, yes).-M: I think that elitism is how it would evolve in practice.I see myself more philosophicly and theoreticly aligned with EC-D thanI see you alighned with it.
And yes, delegations are not a feature I adore, they are here to alleviate a burden, and they can be taken away anytime by the voters themselves.
Have fun with words and do not hesitate to invent definitions. Be my guest.ec: I’m thinking about a system designed to manage issues in a mannersimilar to a parliament. You are thinking about a system designed togenerate a government, fine by me really, but I consider that theparliament can manage it just as well if not better.-M: A parliament is part of a govenment. And I think that SD2 wouldgenerate both.Maybe you are seeing differentiations that I am not seeing.
On one side there is the legislative power, on the other the executive power. You want a tiny hand of executives, I want a boat load of legislators, I want to give the possibility for everyone to be a legislator.
It’s almost fun seeing such a lack of logic!ec: Plus you will always need a parliament in a democracy, don’t you agree?-M: SD2 is parliamentarian isn’t it?
-M: The only problem is that you seem to advocating a system that wouldnaturally evolve into SD2.
Great then isn’t it. You have no problem with a simplistic system combining referenda and delegates, when do you learn programming in order to implement it with me and others?
Constitutional issues are general issues, and those delegated wouldhave constitutional ranking.
You can of course use the word rank, but I don’t.
These would be ad hoc directors who would naturally want to formallizetheir positions, and understandably would make such a push. Give themdirectorships, but limit their individual voting powers to 20% if thatis what the people want.
You can of course use the word directors to describe those delegates managing the most voices, but I don’t.
Have fun with your own contradictions, do not hesitate and have fun. Oh, and empty is the same as non-empty because in non-empty there is empty. Have fun I’m telling you.M: The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.ec: All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegateor not.-M: SD2 allows for having an issue BOTH voted on, and delegated. When both conditions occur, an issue-vote can be analyzed both populisticly and with PageRank. This is a reason why I make the delegation manditory.ec: The very word mandatory is a signal that something is wrong.-M: All constraints in EC-D are manditory, even the non-manditoryconstraints are manditory because the non-manditoriness is itselfmanditory.
Care to invent other stupid statements?ec: Your reason for having mandatory delegations is so that you can use page rank, ain’t that slightly shaky ground?-M:What is more egotistical, me deciding on an issue, or delegatingsomeone else to decide on an issue?
I say build a voting system around the least egotistical choice.
I want to have one person one vote. I want referenda on every issue and the possibility to delegate one’s voice to some one else to alleviate the burden.
-M: They are ranks whether you see them or not.Q: “Who should we talk to about issue X?”A: “Well obviously whoever got the most vote accumulation.”This sounds like rank to me.
To me this sounds like someone powerful on one issue, a politician possibly. But again do carry on using your own words, as I’m sure you will.
The truth is that you are an egotistic illogical elitist. Is that fine by you?M: You are for lemming-filtering like me, so rock on!ec: Sorry, but your very use of derogatory words is a continuing irritation.-M: Then stop being irritated by it.Change. Acknowledge the truth.
Oh, and you are irritating to the point I am not going to bother responding to you whenever you use insults or other derogatory terms. That will filter some of the crap out!
echarp – http://virtualmeetup.our-constitution.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
Mark wrote:
-M: I am a non-dualist. If you want to continue at:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deathtoreligion/
…I would be more than happy to debate you.
ec: I wouldn’t, because you are an egotistic illogical elitist. Those irritating abilities of yours make it so that I’d rather not talkto you. And I’m more and more going to refrain responding to you whenever you use derogatory terms.
-M: Doesn’t dodge-monkeyism make a person an ‘egotistic illogical
elitist’?
How does this serve the field of Social Network Optimization as
applied to political systems?
ec: Yes, we both have accumulative voting, but the delegates I speak are adhoc and potentially different on every issue, while you structure themin ranks and directors. Two things I definitely don’t want.
-M: You may not want them, but you will get them. Voting on the most general issues will create statecraft ranking. The top ranked will find each other and build a team – and they will be noticed.
ec: Easy, I don’t use ranks, I don’t model ranks, I don’t conceptualise using ranks, there are no ranks. That some are the delegates of more voices than others does not imply ranks. But I’m not worried, you can construct any baseless assumption you wish, I won’t stop you. Do say that every delegated voice create a rank or something just as silly.-M: Your lack of seeing ranks won’t stop others from seeing ranks. You don’t have magic powers(from what I am aware.)
ec: This is a mix of direct and indirect democracy, yes. The indirect partmerely here as a compromise to the burdens of real life, it is not hereto bring elitism (although there is that possibility, yes).
-M: I think that elitism is how it would evolve in practice. I see myself more philosophicly and theoreticly aligned with EC-D thanI see you aligned with it.
ec: Great. Yet I only describe things using simple concepts and optional actions. And yes, delegations are not a feature I adore, they are here to alleviate a burden, and they can be taken away anytime by the votersthemselves.
-M: OK.
ec: I’m thinking about a system designed to manage issues in a mannersimilar to a parliament. You are thinking about a system designed togenerate a government, fine by me really, but I consider that theparliament can manage it just as well if not better.
-M: A parliament is part of a govenment. And I think that SD2 would generate both. Maybe you are seeing differentiations that I am not seeing.
ec: […]On one side there is the legislative power, on the other the executive power. You want a tiny hand of executives,…-M: SD2 has only one manditory executive, though in practice, it would evolve into much more.
ec: I want a boat load of legislators, I want to give the possibility for everyone to be a legislator.
-M: SD2 would usually have five legislators, but in practice, they would probably evolve to be ‘rubber-stamps’ – simply approving what a larger number of legislatures pass. This would be giving you what you want.
ec: Plus you will always need a parliament in a democracy, don’t you agree?
-M: SD2 is parliamentarian isn’t it?
ec: It’s almost fun seeing such a lack of logic!
-M: The lack of logic is because you erased my logic. DOINK! I said: “The only time it wouldn’t be is under these two conditions:
-M: The only problem is that you seem to advocating a system that would naturally evolve into SD2.
ec: Great then isn’t it. You have no problem with a simplistic system combining referenda and delegates, when do you learn programming in order to implement it with me and others?
-M: People have different temperments and aptitudes. I am not a programming type.
M: Constitutional issues are general issues, and those delegated would have constitutional ranking.
ec: You can of course use the word rank, but I don’t.
-M: Thats what it would be and people would see it as such.
M: These would be ad hoc directors who would naturally want to formallize their positions, and understandably would make such a push. Give them directorships, but limit their individual voting powers to 20% if that is what the people want.
ec: You can of course use the word directors to describe those delegates managing the most voices, but I don’t.
-M: They would function as directors – what we call them is a different issue.
M: The main problem I see here is that with only optional representitvevoting, those who don’t delegate can only have their vote countedpopulisticly, and not by PageRank or by a similar algorithm.
ec: All votes are counted equally, whether they are cast through a delegateor not.
-M: SD2 allows for having an issue BOTH voted on, and delegated. When both conditions occur, an issue-vote can be analyzed both populisticly and with PageRank. This is a reason why I make the delegation manditory.
ec: The very word mandatory is a signal that something is wrong.
-M: All constraints in EC-D are manditory, even the non-manditory constraints are manditory because the non-manditoriness is itselfmanditory.
ec: Have fun with your own contradictions, do not hesitate and have fun. Oh, and empty is the same as non-empty because in non-empty there is empty. Have fun I’m telling you.-M: I have fun with people’s lack of understanding of logical structures called ‘nested hierarchies’. (Or at least can apply them to programming, but nothing else.)
ec: Your reason for having mandatory delegations is so that you can use page rank, ain’t that slightly shaky ground?
-M:What is more egotistical, me deciding on an issue, or delegatingsomeone else to decide on an issue?
ec: Care to invent other stupid statements?
-M: Care to answer the question, and not be a fuck’n dodge-monkey again?
M: I say build a voting system around the least egotistical choice.
ec: I want to have one person one vote. I want referenda on every issue…
-M: I am not opposed to referenda, but I see referenda as having a data
problem.
Referendum by themselves can only be counted,
while delegates/reps can have accumulative voting, creating deep and
usefull hierarchies.
I do see a subsystem of SD2 that could have both delegates and referendum – this would give both popular and PageRank analysis about an issue.
ec:…and the possibility to delegate one’s voice to some one else to alleviate the burden.
-M: This alleviates a legislative burden for specific issues.
Would you be willing to alleviate legislative burden for general
issues?
There would be a demand for this, this is why EC-D would evolve into
SD2.
-M: They are ranks whether you see them or not.
Q: “Who should we talk to about issue X?”A: “Well obviously whoever got the most vote accumulation.”This sounds like rank to me.
ec: To me this sounds like someone powerful on one issue, a politician possibly.
-M: Not yet, but if either of us get our systems implimented, then our political action makes us a politician.
ec: But again do carry on using your own words, as I’m sure you will.
-M: I am carrying on with my accurate desciption.
M: You are for lemming-filtering like me, so rock on!
ec: Sorry, but your very use of derogatory words is a continuing irritation.
-M: Then stop being irritated by it. Change. Acknowledge the truth.
ec: The truth is that you are an egotistic illogical elitist.
-M: Who are you to call me this? An egotistical elitist yourself?
This contradiction makes you illogical as well.
So are you now the egotistic illogical elitist?
I think so.
ec: Is that fine by you?
-M: I also notice you keep DODGING the truth about lemmings. Are you a DODGE-MONKEY too?
ec: Oh, and you are irritating to the point I am not going to bother responding to you whenever you use insults or other derogatory terms.
-M: And yet you want the power to use insults and other derogatory
terms?
Like a HYPOCRITE?
ec: That will filter some of the crap out!
-M: And does this show a commitment to the field of Social Network
Optimization as applied to political systems?
Does this make you a WUSSY? I think so.
So now you are an egotistic illogical elitist hypocritical dodge-monkey
wussy?
I think so.
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
[…]
M: 2. I achieved spiritual awakening. […]
ec: Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing!!!-M: Are you going to keep DODGING? If any of our systems are going to be successful, it is important that we stay engaged.
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
Ok, I’m trying this as an exercise of my patience.
Again, I want binding referendum, held using any method and threshold previously chosen by the legal rules in place. Obviously there are matters of majorities, yes, and this is perfectly fine although it can of course lead to tyranny of the majority.
Well, using directors and ranks, if a majority of the population actually want something, so much that they will only vote for the one party that support it, will that not be a tyranny of the majority?
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:49:31PM -0700, Mark wrote:
-M: I imagine that SD2-directors would usually want people to votedirectly on issues.How nice of them! I don’t want directors to allow a referendum on an issue, I want every issue to be a referendum!
How strange that despite your words it is directors that will decide issues, not popular votes!ec: You want a government of the few, I want a parliament of the many.-M: No, you want government of the 50%+1.I want government of everyone who has recieved even ONE write in votefrom someone else.
I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!!ec: I do not want to be directed by snobs/pricks! Understand that?-M: If so, then why do you want to be directed by the snob/prickrepresentitives of the 50%+1?
Do you get it?
Do you understand what I want???
Wow, I hardly believe you there (hint hint, this is sarcasm)ec: Indirect transmission has always been less optimal than direct. Want to discuss that?-M: This does relate to centrality algorithms – the MAIN topic that Ihave been wanting to discuss.
-M: There are goals and there are means to achieve goals -hopefully a voter and a representitive would be aligned in fundamentalgoals, but a statecraft-expert-representitive would have more knowledgein the means to acheive the goal – this is more direct because theexpert is closer to the instruments of administration.
Again, I don’t want representatives, I want to vote on issues. I want everybody to vote on all issues!!!
-M: No, your way AUTOMATICLY discounts anyone in the 50%-1, andwaters down those in the 50%+1 in a sea of lemminghood.By contrast, with SD2, ALL minority opinion counts, and someone gainsrank with only one vote from anyone.
Again, push those representatives aside, and give me issues. It’s on issues that voices have to be heard, representatives are your way to become our leader (or so it seems), not a way to decide on things.
-M: You just DODGED.The fact is you can’t take an authoritative position against authoritywithout creating what is called a*performative contradiction*.
Cough cough, let me be the judge of the positions I want to take.
And let’s try a bit of logic on your first statement:
Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself? If not, then yourposition is not authoritative.
WOW
Is that really what you had in mind?
-M:(You dodged again.)1. I created SD2.2. I achieved spiritual awakening.3. I whupped your dodge-monkey-ass for your own good.
I can’t believe how egotist this makes you look!!!
Plus your interest in ranks and philosopher kings have me wonder about your thirst for power. Are you ambitious? Do you want to direct others’ lives?
Onanism would be directly against the personality you project. Against the repetitions you use and abuse.ec: Nice of you to finally understand one thing about what others can propose. Of course calling a “Markov chain” what is merely a directedgraph does look like a bit of mathematical onanism.-M: And? Is this a case against PageRank?(please don’t dodge.)
I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way to alleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue.M: So what is your centrality algorithm?ec: One man one voice, ever heard about it?-M: We both have this. But you want to arbitrarily limit theMarkov-chains, then DODGE your rationale.
The graphs are not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) to another one, etc.
Transitive delegations?ec: Can you tell me where the difference lies between the proxy delegate system and the page rank algo?-M: With PageRank, there is no arbitrary limit to the depth of theMarkov chain.This is why I think that PageRank is the least arbitrary of ALLALGORITHMS.
Great then! I’m glad to see it’s all already programed!ec: Do you have any idea how complex those things are to implement? I’ve been thinking about it since 1997, and am still having troubles withdelegation cycles which look fine on paper, but are a bitch to manage.Of course I could just forbid them and only manage a nice tree…-M: Let Pagerank do all of the work.
Oh, there might be a bit of tweaking here and there, but you’ll manage it all by yourself without a hint of a sweat!!! :)
Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation?ec: Ok, let me show you where the difference is, well, except for the director and rank bullshits which I definitely hate:
- proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person* page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than oneother person-M: One point missed – this voting power doesn’t arbitrarily stop atthis first order person, but it continues on to other delegatespotentially ad infinitum(unless it finds a loop, which it does withreal world data) – the idea here is to preserve minority voting poweras much as possible.
Delegations are transitives!
So,
Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?
-M: SD2 would allow for your system. I imagine that directors wouldusually want people to vote on all issues, and would weight each issueby its popular rank and by its PageRank. If I was a director, I wouldusually hold an issue in debate until the popular rank was on the sameside of an issue as the PageRank.
How nice of you, oh great leader, to deign considering the populace and its whims.
Aren’t we lucky to have you, instead of having the greatest number to directly choose what they want.
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
ec: Ok, I’m trying this as an exercise of my patience. Again, I want binding referendum, held using any method and threshold
previously chosen by the legal rules in place. Obviously there are matters of majorities, yes, and this is perfectly fine although it can of course lead to tyranny of the majority. Well, using directors and ranks, if a majority of the population actually want something, so much that they will only vote for the one party that support it, will that not be a tyranny of the majority?
-M: No, because SD2 isn’t majoritarian. The vote has been filtered. If the majority is aligned with this vote, it is just a correlation, and is not causal.
-M: I imagine that SD2-directors would usually want people to vote directly on issues.
ec: How nice of them! I don’t want directors to allow a referendum on an issue, I want every issue to be a referendum!
-M: A dog wants to shit on your bed, and a bear wants to raid your
refridgerator.
Wanting is not the issue, philosophical justification is the issue.
Why direct representation always?
Are you representing an opinion against representation?
Or did you get voters to approve of your opinion?
ec: You want a government of the few, I want a parliament of the many.
-M: No, you want government of the 50%+1. I want government of everyone who has recieved even ONE write in vote from someone else.
ec: How strange that despite your words it is directors that will decide issues, not popular votes!
-M: Yes, but they are ‘under the gun’ of ALL the voters, and will lose
rank if they don’t represent correctly.
By contrast, you SHIT on the 50%-1.
ec: I do not want to be directed by snobs/pricks! Understand that?
-M: If so, then why do you want to be directed by the snob/prick representitives of the 50%+1?
ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?
-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are still
the top administrators.
These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings.
Enjoy.
ec: Do you understand what I want???
-M: Another Blood-Bath?
ec: Indirect transmission has always been less optimal than direct. Want to discuss that?
-M: This does relate to centrality algorithms – the MAIN topic that I have been wanting to discuss.
ec: Wow, I hardly believe you there (hint hint, this is sarcasm)
-M: Lets continue.
-M: There are goals and there are means to achieve goals – hopefully a voter and a representitive would be aligned in fundamental goals, but a statecraft-expert-representitive would have more knowledge in the means to acheive the goal – this is more direct because the expert is closer to the instruments of administration.
ec: Again, I don’t want representatives,…
-M: Too bad. You will get your ‘snob/prick representitives’ regardless of the system that you have.
Now the only issue is if they will be selected by the lemmings or not.
ec: I want to vote on issues. I want everybody to vote on all issues!!!
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish. I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
-M: No, your way AUTOMATICLY discounts anyone in the 50%-1, and waters down those in the 50%+1 in a sea of lemminghood. By contrast, with SD2, ALL minority opinion counts, and someone gains rank with only one vote from anyone.
ec: Again, push those representatives aside, and give me issues.
-M: We can’t do that. Reps seem manditory.
ec: It’s on issues that voices have to be heard, representatives are your way to become our leader (or so it seems),…
-M: Maybe you will get SD2-directorship. SD2 is just math – I don’t know how I would get it to select me alone.
ec:…not a way to decide on things.
-M: The least hierarchal way to decide on things is with the lemming-50%+1 – but this makes the lemmings representitive of their philosophical superiors(the lemmings ALWAYS outnumber the philosophers.) This is EVIL because it puts the inferior in a hierarchy over the superior.
-M: You just DODGED. The fact is you can’t take an authoritative position against authority without creating what is called a
performative contradiction.
ec: Cough cough, let me be the judge of the positions I want to take. And let’s try a bit of logic on your first statement:
-M: Lets go.
M: Do you say this as a philosopher king yourself? If not, then your position is not authoritative.
ec: * speak as a philosopher king or have a not authoritative position
-M: I did catch that. You are still taking an authoritative position against authority.
-M:(You dodged again.)1. I created SD2.2. I achieved spiritual awakening.3. I whupped your dodge-monkey-ass for your own good.
ec: I can’t believe how egotist this makes you look!!!
-M: If so, what are you going to do about it? Defeat me in a debate?
ec: Plus your interest in ranks…
-M: Your voting for administrators in a DD system would create rank.
Of course I am interested in ranks, as everybody interested in
governance should be.
Now the issue is:
What is the best centrality algorithm to create rank?
ec:…and philosopher kings have me wonder about your thirst for power.
-M: Power happens regardless of the system. The issue now is: Which centrality algorithm generates the most legitimate power?
ec: Are you ambitious?
-M: Yes, I do want to proliferate SD2.
ec: Do you want to direct others’ lives?
-M: No, I want to keep the lemmings from directing our lives.
Do you want to be ‘Lord of the Lemmings’?
The highest administrator of a DD system?
ec: Nice of you to finally understand one thing about what others can propose. Of course calling a “Markov chain” what is merely a directed graph does look like a bit of mathematical onanism.
-M: And? Is this a case against PageRank?(please don’t dodge.)
ec: Onanism would be directly against the personality you project.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
ec: Against the repetitions you use and abuse.
-M: I am an expert in mind-control, and the technique I use is a “shock-and-awe-truth-assault” method. In person, I am more polite.
M: So what is your centrality algorithm?
ec: One man one voice, ever heard about it?
-M: We both have this. But you want to arbitrarily limit the Markov-chains, then DODGE your rationale.
ec: I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way to alleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue.
The graphs are not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) to another one, etc.
-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this. Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
ec: Can you tell me where the difference lies between the proxy delegate system and the page rank algo?
-M: With PageRank, there is no arbitrary limit to the depth of the Markov chain. This is why I think that PageRank is the least arbitrary of ALL ALGORITHMS.
ec: Transitive delegations?
-M: I imagine that the general directors would delegate to specialists
for specific issues.
Is this what you are asking?
ec: Do you have any idea how complex those things are to implement? I’ve been thinking about it since 1997, and am still having troubles with delegation cycles which look fine on paper, but are a bitch to manage. Of course I could just forbid them and only manage a nice tree…
-M: Let Pagerank do all of the work.
ec: Great then! I’m glad to see it’s all already programed!
-M: There is still more work that can be done to make implimenting SD2 more efficient.
ec: Oh, there might be a bit of tweaking here and there, but you’ll manage it all by yourself without a hint of a sweat!!! :)
-M: Cracking the whip can be a bit exhausting.
ec: Ok, let me show you where the difference is, well, except for the director and rank bullshits which I definitely hate: * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person
-M: One point missed – this voting power doesn’t arbitrarily stop at this first order person, but it continues on to other delegatespotentially ad infinitum(unless it finds a loop, which it does with real world data) – the idea here is to preserve minority voting poweras much as possible.
ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?
-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote or
more?
If its just a single vote, then you are just layering a first-order
algorithm.
-M: SD2 would allow for your system. I imagine that directors would usually want people to vote on all issues, and would weight each issue by its popular rank and by its PageRank. If I was a director, I would usually hold an issue in debate until the popular rank was on the same side of an issue as the PageRank.
ec: How nice of you, oh great leader,…
-M: Do you take a leadership position against leadership?
ec:..to deign considering the populace and its whims. Aren’t we lucky to have you, instead of having the greatest number to directly choose what they want.
-M: Yes, the idea is to protect the 50%-1.
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
What else do you boast about?
I am no rocket scientist, but a 33 years old software engineer who happen to also have a degree in mechanical engineering.
Who are you mister elitist? Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable? So much so that the ideas you could otherwise present have no chance to advance?
Oh, a gem!!! The only thing of some interest you have said for a long time.ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are stillthe top administrators.These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings.Enjoy.
The answer to this very real problem: P2P.
No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible.
Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish.I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
(laughs… at you)
A delegate can also delegate his voice and the voices he represents to another delegate. No limit.I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way toalleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue. The graphsare not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) toanother one, etc.-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this.Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
All the votes he represents. No limit.ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote ormore?
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
ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?
-M: Do you know that your attidude is more disageeable than mine?
ec: So much so that the ideas you could otherwise present have no chance to advance?
-M: My ideas already are advancing.
ec: I don’t want representatives, I want everyone to vote on issues!!! Do you get it?
-M: Even if there are no legislative representitives, there are still the top administrators. These are your ‘snob/prick representitives’ as chosen by the lemmings. Enjoy.
ec: Oh, a gem!!! The only thing of some interest you have said for a long time.
-M: Your wise-ass attidude is disagreeable. You are the one that starts this.
ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders. Computers can’t do this.
-M: OK. If I was an SD2-director, I would give you your wish. I just wouldn’t let the lemmings cast the deciding vote.
ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?
ec: (laughs… at you)
-M: I googled it. Did you spell it correctly? I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say, and you are being didrespectful and dishonorable. WTF?
I don’t want directed graphs, I only accept them as a way toalleviate the burden of voting on each and every issue. The graphsare not limited in depth. A delegate can delegate his voice(s) toanother one, etc.
-M: But do you have accumulative voting? PageRank has this. Your way just seems like a limited depth of a single order.
ec: A delegate can also delegate his voice and the voices he represents to
another delegate. No limit.
ec: Where does it say that proxy delegates stop at one delegation? Delegations are transitives! So, * proxy delegate: one can delegate his voice to one other person * page rank: one can delegate fractions of his voice to more than one other person Am I right (abstracting those stupid directors and ranks)?
-M: When a delegate votes for another delegate, is it just one vote or more?
ec: All the votes he represents. No limit
-M: Then he is a legislative representitive. This is your ‘snob/prick’ and he will cut deals with the top administrator, who is also one of your ‘snob/pricks’.
The difference between your ‘snob/pricks’ and mine is that yours are chosen by the lemmings.
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
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:36:37PM -0700, Mark wrote:
You mean that I am disrespectful to you?ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?-M: Do you know that your attidude is more disageeable than mine?
I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting, your lack of consistency and your repetitive use of derogatory words (like lemming or dodge monkey).
I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
An employee can do that.ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders.Computers can’t do this.
There is nothing in a state that a parliament can not do!
There are delegates, yes, and I’m sure some will be pricks/snobs, yes, yet they are delegates which can be changed and even overridden any time!ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by anothername. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislativerepresentitives.
Don’t like what your delegate in foreign affairs is doing? Then you can:
Same with all other issues.
Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:
Vigilance is key.
I laughed mostly because you spelled masturbation incorrectly while wondering if onanism was actually correct. Plus it is a way for me to relax :)-M: ‘Onanism’ – masterbation? Did you spell this word correctly?ec: (laughs… at you)-M: I googled it. Did you spell it correctly? I am trying to figure outwhat you are trying to say, and you are being didrespectful anddishonorable. WTF?
Try again on google, the first answer is correct, as are the next ones… (onanism is equivalent to masturbation, although historically it is mostly a contraception method used by onan: the coïtus interruptus)
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
ec:[…] Do you know that your attitude is very disagreeable?
-M: Do you know that your attitude is more disageeable than mine?
ec: You mean that I am disrespectful to you?
-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
ec: I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…
-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not? You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is not how to serve humanity.
ec:…your lack of consistency…
-M: Where?
ec…and your repetitive use of derogatory words…
-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
ec:..(like lemming or dodge monkey).
-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I am trying to proliferate.
ec: I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only one who should change.
ec: The answer to this very real problem: P2P. No need of a central server with a trusted administrator, have as many servers and administrators as possible. Each participant’s computer can be a server.
-M: Someone needs the signing authority to issue executive orders. Computers can’t do this.
ec: An employee can do that. There is nothing in a state that a parliament can not do!
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,
usually a PM.
And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for each
issue?
Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is an
unavoidable job.)
ec: I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name. And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
ec: There are delegates, yes, and I’m sure some will be pricks/snobs, yes,
yet they are delegates which can be changed and even overridden any time! Don’t like what your delegate in foreign affairs is doing? Then you can:
-M: SD2 has these options. But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs. I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe by accumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board of directors.
ec: Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:
-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of the
accumulative voting.
There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be a
powerful anti-corruption mechanism.
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
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 08:58:28AM -0700, Mark wrote:
I consider that your repetitive use of derogatory words toward me and most of humanity is insulting.You mean that I am disrespectful to you?-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
Can you stop it please?
It’s worse than that, if you are truly all the things you are boasting about, you should in fact shut up about it!!!I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not?
On the contrary, you are boasting and displaying what are unverifiable chunks of immodesty.
So much so, that I’m trying to be nicer, fearing you may just be in some sort of mental situation. This kind of thing happens and I would not want to be any burden on that…
Are you…?
You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is nothow to serve humanity.
I’m interested in the people I encounter. Sometimes some are agreeable, modest, rational…
your lack of consistency…-M: Where?
Again again again, funny how you can make an ass out of yourself. Where is your whip to shape me up?and your repetitive use of derogatory words…-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
Ok, I’m calling on your bluff. Who are you??? Any online CV? Any online presence besides here?
Derogatory terms, lack of respect. Plus boasting about your knowledge of “truth” that you dutifully “proliferate”...(like lemming or dodge monkey).-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I amtrying to proliferate.
Are you the messiah? An apostle?
I’m trying to be nice. I don’t know you, but wondering…I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only onewho should change.
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,usually a PM.And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for eachissue?Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is anunavoidable job.)
Tell me what duties require a top administrator… Right now I don’t see any of them that can not be managed by an employee, but I could be wrong.
Delegates can be considered as some sort of representative, yes.I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name.
And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
P2P servers? Do I need to go through the term to explain it to you?
Ad hoc, what a great word!!! It makes all the difference with your ranked directors who decide on all issues.* change delegate* directly voteSame with all other issues.-M: SD2 has these options.But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs.I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe byaccumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board ofdirectors.
In my mind, the most important matters will rise in the public consciousness, and will become referendum involving most of the population. All other issues rely on delegates, who alleviate that burden.
Ad hoc yes :)
Ranked hierarchies? Where do you see that?Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:* opacity* manipulation* corruption* …Vigilance is key.-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of theaccumulative voting.
This is not EC-D, but proxy delegates, or liquid democracy, or just DD with the possibility of transitive delegations on each issue.
There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be apowerful anti-corruption mechanism.
Elites can’t be corrupted???
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
You mean that I am disrespectful to you?
-M: Yes, and I am not disrespectful to you.
ec: I consider that your repetitive use of derogatory words toward me and most of humanity is insulting.
Can you stop it please?
-M: The truth is something that you need. When you accept it, it will no longer hurt.
I’m sorry, but I believe this is only in reaction to your boasting,…
-M: Are my boasts TRUE or not?
ec: It’s worse than that, if you are truly all the things you are boasting about, you should in fact shut up about it!!! On the contrary, you are boasting and displaying what are unverifiable chunks of immodesty.
-M: I am a philosopher, a mind-controller and awakened. The first two can be proven. The one about being awakened – you would have to talk to people that know me. Maybe you would believe them. But the main issue now is to compare EC-D with SD2.
ec: So much so, that I’m trying to be nicer,…
-M: You are mean, because you are a dodge-monkey.
ec:…fearing you may just be in some sort of mental situation. This kind of thing happens and I would not
want to be any burden on that… Are you…?
-M: I am very nice because I follow the rules, and I bear the burden of proliferating the truth.
M: You seem more interested in personal style than truth, and this is not how to serve humanity.
ec: I’m interested in the people I encounter. Sometimes some are agreeable, modest, rational…
-M: Are you interested in the truth?
your lack of consistency…
-M: Where?
ec: * defending against the 50%+1 tyranny of the majority yet democracy is only valid when encompassing at least 50% of the population
-M: Did I say otherwise? I did say that voting inputs should be allowed for 50%+1 of the population in order to be called democracy.
ec: * top rank directors represent up to 100% of the population, yet we all know that a referendum can also reach up to 100% “yes”
-M: So? In that situation the directors and the population would probably be in agreement.
ec: * philosopher kings are the only ones able to talk with authority
-M: I did show how you were taking an authoritative position against
authority.
An issue you have since DODGED.
ec: * one can not talk against authority without authority
-M: I hope you aren’t equivocating here. This sentence can be correct.
ec: * you want direct participation yet advocate top rank directors who have the last say in everything
M: Yes, and this participation would be rewarded with rank.
Your EC-D would be very similar, and could achieve dictatorial results
top delagates could easily delegate their votes to the top statecraft
experts, who could delegate to their favorite leader.
By contrast, SD2 beaks up power into managable (recommended) 20% units.
ec: * if A is at the origin of B, then we should only discuss A
irrespective of B, yet you admit that we can also discuss B
-M: ‘only discuss A irrespective of B’ – I never said that.
ec: * you fear the common people yet base your political system on them (why not use IQ tests instead for example? or success through accumulation of money? or force of conviction through years serving in the army? …etc.)
-M: Asking people for general affective data and allowing for vote accumulation is the least arbitrary way to rank people. Your EC-D does this too.
ec: * not contradicting one self means one is not a lemming, what if a “lemming” does not have opinions?
-M: No, someone is a lemming if they contradict themselves about fundamental issues. If they have no opinions, they probably are a lemming also since they don’t have opinions that could be used to guide society correctly.
ec: * you prove your own use of a word through the fact that you use that word in that manner…
-M: No, I use only the current standing definitions.
ec: * the only thing of importance are representatives, not issues, yet we are debating on issues here, not representatives
-M: We are being representitives of our opinions. And many DD-lemmings here want to represent opinions against representation.
and your repetitive use of derogatory words…
-M: This is part of my mind control techniques.
ec: Again again again, funny how you can make an ass out of yourself. Where is your whip to shape me up? Ok, I’m calling on your bluff. Who are you??? Any online CV? Any online presence besides here?
-M: The difference is, your other mind-controllers aren’t identifying
themselves as such.
My methods are superior.
..(like lemming or dodge monkey).
-M: ‘lemming’ and ‘dodge-monkey’ are uncontested truths that I am trying to proliferate.
ec: Derogatory terms, lack of respect.
-M: No, its respectful because its the truth.
ec: Plus boasting about your knowledge of “truth” that you dutifully “proliferate”.
-M: Is your statement the truth that you are trying to proliferate?
ec: Are you the messiah? An apostle?
-M: No, just someone who is whupping your dodge-monkey-ass for your own good.
I acknowledge my attitude toward you and will easily change it, will you do the same?
-M: You are the only one breaking rules, therefore you are the only one who should change.
ec: I’m trying to be nice. I don’t know you, but wondering…
-M: If you are trying to be nice, start by stop breaking rules.
-M: Every parliament in the world has a highest executive for a reason,usually a PM. And the PM is an employee. Do you want a top administrator for eachissue? Well, the PM is the top administrator for structual issues(this is anunavoidable job.)
ec: Tell me what duties require a top administrator… Right now I don’t see
any of them that can not be managed by an employee, but I could be wrong.
-M: The top employee is the top administrator.
I want referendum. Not to be directed by pricks/snobs.
-M: You still have delegates. These are representitives by another name.
ec: Delegates can be considered as some sort of representative, yes.
-M: OK, then lets not BS around. What EC-D calls delegates, SD2 calls
representitives.
Your reps are ranked for specific issues, with the option to be ranked
for general issues.
My reps are ranked for general issues, with the option to be ranked for
specific issues.
M: And again, you still need administrators, who are non-legislative representitives.
ec: P2P servers? Do I need to go through the term to explain it to you?
-M: Computers can’t give signing authority for executive orders. People are needed for operations in meat-space.
* change delegate* directly voteSame with all other issues.
-M: SD2 has these options. But SD2, unlike EC-D, actually formalizes the task of structural jobs.I have formal directors, while with EC-D, the top ranked(maybe byaccumualted votes over a time period) would form an ad-hoc board ofdirectors.
ec: Ad hoc, what a great word!!! It makes all the difference with your ranked directors who decide on all issues.
-M: DOINK! Strawman. Statecraft experts would be expected not to
micromanage.
They would lose rank if they tried.
ec: In my mind, the most important matters will rise in the public consciousness, and will become referendum involving most of the
population. All other issues rely on delegates, who alleviate that burden. Ad hoc yes :)
-M: SD2 has ad hoc options too. The point I was trying to make is that a statecraft community would form under EC-D, ant the top ranked would be similar to SD2 directors.
Yes, it is no protection against all troubles that could happen:* opacity* manipulation* corruption* …Vigilance is key.
-M: EC-D, like SD2, does create ranked hierarchies as a result of the accumulative voting.
ec: Ranked hierarchies? Where do you see that?
-M: Some people would accumulate more votes than others. People would notice this.
ec: This is not EC-D, but proxy delegates, or liquid democracy, or just DD with the possibility of transitive delegations on each issue.
-M: There is optional DD, but in practice it would be hardcore-RD. Imagine people voting on structural issues, such as how a constitution would define the relations between the executive, legislative and judiciary.
Votes would get delegated to others. The five with the most acculated
votes would get attention.
I don’t see them as being much different than SD2 directors, and if one
recieved more than 20% of the accumulated votes, they would have more
power than an SD2-director.
M:There would be an identifyable statecraft community which would be a powerful anti-corruption mechanism.
ec: Elites can’t be corrupted???
-M: We have elites regardless, so the only issue is anti-corruption mechanisms, which both EC-D and SD2 have.
SD2’s anti-corruption mechanism is the focusing of accountability on
only five people,
and have having them replacable at the drop of a hat.
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
Athens….
-M: No, this was a representitve democracy because the male landowners were considered representitives of their workers, tenents, women and children. This was <50% of the population, so they were either a rep-democracy or an oligarchy.
MG:- I would say that you are wrong here. Today such a system would be
considered maybe a representative democracy.
In those days the only ones to have a real will was the males.
The rest was of no interest when in came to politics. (comparable to
animals)
Therefore it was more of a DD than anything else.
Unfortunately they didn’t have computers or even PA-systems…so
communication was slow and bad.
I don’t know the history good enough but I guess that some elitist
after a while saw a chance of getting a little more power than the
rest…I’m smarter than you….what if we…..
And there we go…
Or was violence involved…?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
Athens….
-M: No, this was a representitve democracy because the male landowners
were considered representitives of their workers, tenents, women and children. This was <50% of the population, so they were either a rep-democracy or an oligarchy.
mG:- I would say that you are wrong here. Today such a system would be considered maybe a representative democracy. In those days the only ones to have a real will was the males. The rest was of no interest when in came to politics. (comparable to
animals) Therefore it was more of a DD than anything else. […]
-M: We now know better. They were an oligarchy, not a 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Why?
If they saw themselves as “all” citizens, you are wrong.
I they felt discriminating, you are right.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
[…]
-M: We now know better. They were an oligarchy, not a DD.
mG: Why? If they saw themselves as “all” citizens, you are wrong.-M: They were all citizens, but they were not >50% of the people.
This makes them an oligarchy by my proposed definition.
mG: I they felt discriminating, you are right.
-M: The difference is I actually gave numerical thresholds to define
this discrimination.
I created a testable constraint that can be used for the purposes of
discourse.
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
-M: They were all citizens, but they were not >50% of the people.
This makes them an oligarchy by my proposed definition.
MG:- Only an oligarchy if it was a common view at the time. Othervice an democracy.
mG: I they felt discriminating, you are right.
-M: The difference is I actually gave numerical thresholds to define
this discrimination. I created a testable constraint that can be used for the purposes of discourse.
MG:- But it doesn’t answer if they felt discriminated or not so you are still wrong.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
-M: They were all citizens, but they were not >50% of the people. This makes them an oligarchy by my proposed definition.
mG:- Only an oligarchy if it was a common view at the time. Othervice an democracy.
-M: Fuck the ‘common view’ – they aren’t here to debate the rationale behind their bullshit view.
mG: I they felt discriminating, you are right.
-M: The difference is I actually gave numerical thresholds to define this discrimination. I created a testable constraint that can be used for the purposes of discourse.
mG:- But it doesn’t answer if they felt discriminated or not so you are still wrong.
-M: Fuck ‘feelings’ – they were discriminated against. This is the TRUTH, not fuck’n FEELINGS.
Athens was an oligarchy because they didn’t pass the test for a democracy, which is 50%+1 being eligible voters.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
New discussion
Answer
+1
mG: There can be democracy in a group or not. The group in Athens that where voting was a homogenous group.
You could see them as a party like AD, with a very big part of the
population as members.
Within the group they had true democracy, that’s what’s interesting.
-M: Agreed on all points.
mG: It has nothing to do with the fact that not all, children, slaves or wifes where within the party. It was still the closest to DD we’ve seen
so far. Instead we should discuss how it worked.
-M: There are direct democracies here:
http://directory.ic.org/
http://thefec.org/
They just aren’t city-states.
The prefered model is RD.
My spiritual tradition uses non-democratic top-down appointed command hierarchies.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
New discussion
Answer
mG: There can be democracy in a group or not. The group in Athens that where voting was a homogenous group.
You could see them as a party like AD, with a very big part of the
population as members.
Within the group they had true democracy, that’s what’s interesting.
-M: Agreed on all points.
MG:- So why can’t we discuss what went wrong in Athens? I don’t know the history so well?
M: There are direct democracies here:
http://directory.ic.org/
http://thefec.org/
They just aren’t city-states.
The prefered model is RD.
My spiritual tradition uses non-democratic top
MG:-Well if you think this is what DD is all about, I can understand
some fear..
Most of the ones I found in the hughe database are based around the
communistic ideal:
“Holds its land, labor, income and other resources in common. "
So I don’t really see these communities as good examples of DD. The decisions taken there are easty to question if you don’t shere their ideals of economy and capitalism.
When I say community I mean small or big towns really as we have them
in Sweden.
The total contry is divided in around 270 communities which are
responsible for all non federal duties except health care. This is
handled by some 10 regions.
All laws and the rest is governed by the state of Sweden.
Some small parties here in Sweden only exists on community level other
go directly to the parliemant in Stockholm as AD.
This becuse soo much is still decided there and we wan’t to make the
greatest impact with the smallest work/leadtime.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
You could see them as a party like AD, with a very big part of the population as members.mG: There can be democracy in a group or not. The group in Athens that where voting was a homogenous group.
-M: Agreed on all points.
mG:- So why can’t we discuss what went wrong in Athens? I don’t know the history so well?
-M: Socrates should have been in charge instead of being executed. SD2 would have allowed him to have been in charge.
M: There are direct democracies here:
http://directory.ic.org/
http://thefec.org/
They just aren’t city-states.
The prefered model is RD.
My spiritual tradition uses non-democratic top
mG:-Well if you think this is what DD is all about, I can understand some fear.. Most of the ones I found in the hughe database are based around the
communistic ideal: "Holds its land, labor, income and other resources
in common. "
So I don’t really see these communities as good examples of DD.
-M: Some are not commie.
mG:The decisions taken there are easty to question if you don’t shere their ideals of economy and capitalism. When I say community I mean small or big towns really as we have them in Sweden.
-M: The word I would use for that is ‘municipality’.
mG: The total contry is divided in around 270 communities which are responsible for all non federal duties except health care. This is handled by some 10 regions. All laws and the rest is governed by the state of Sweden. Some small parties here in Sweden only exists on community level other
go directly to the parliemant in Stockholm as AD. This becuse soo much is still decided there and we wan’t to make the greatest impact with the smallest work/leadtime.
-M: Our structure is municipality>county>state>federal. A ‘community’ is first thought of in its social context – whether this community is economicly bundled with its nearest municipality is a separate issue. I think that Americans tend to have a more libertarian mindset than Swedes, this lead us to prioritize social contexts over governmental/political contexts. Your mindset seems to parallel the Greek concept of ‘polis’, in which the social and political are not clearly differentiated.
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
Most important:
mG:- So why can’t we discuss what went wrong in Athens? I don’t know the history so well?
-M: Socrates should have been in charge instead of being executed. SD2 would have allowed him to have been in charge.
MG:-OK, who killed him and why?
mG:The decisions taken there are easty to question if you don’t shere their ideals of economy and capitalism. When I say community I mean small or big towns really as we have them in Sweden.
-M: The word I would use for that is ‘municipality’.
MG:-OK you get the picture at least.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
mG:- So why can’t we discuss what went wrong in Athens? I don’t know the history so well?
-M: Socrates should have been in charge instead of being executed. SD2 would have allowed him to have been in charge.
mG:-OK, who killed him and why?
-M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
mG:The decisions taken there are easty to question if you don’t shere their ideals of economy and capitalism. When I say community I mean small or big towns really as we have them in Sweden.
-M: The word I would use for that is ‘municipality’.
mG:-OK you get the picture at least.
-M: Yes, I understand the political structure. Are you going to test AD with non-municipality-based-communities?
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
-M: Socrates should have been in charge instead of being executed. SD2
would have allowed him to have been in charge.
mG:-OK, who killed him and why?
-M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
MG:- OK so he didn’t like the elections by lot. “Indeed, even though Socrates himself fought for Athens and argued for obedience to law, at the same time he criticised democracy, especially, the Athenian practice of election by lot, ridiculing that in no other craft, the craftsman would be elected in such a fashion. Such a criticism gave rise to suspicion by the democrats, especially when his close associates were found to be enemies of democracy.”
So what does that say for or against DD?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
-M: Socrates should have been in charge instead of being executed. SD2 would have allowed him to have been in charge.
mG:-OK, who killed him and why?
-M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
mG:- OK so he didn’t like the elections by lot. "Indeed, even though Socrates himself fought for Athens and argued for
obedience to law, at the same time he criticised democracy, especially, the Athenian practice of election by lot, ridiculing that in no other craft, the craftsman would be elected in such a fashion. Such a criticism gave rise to suspicion by the democrats, especially when his close associates were found to be enemies of democracy."
mG: So what does that say for or against DD?
-M: He was criticising majoritarianism. He would probably have loved SD2/PageRank.
Again, back to the issue of centrality algorithms.
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
mG:-OK, who killed him and why?
-M: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
MG:- OK an interesting story…:
“Hidden behind these accusations was the ego of the elite. In the Agora of the time, Socrates would purposefully, through question and answer, reveal that “great men” actually knew nothing. For a wealthy person or citizen in high esteem of Athens, Socrates’s “discussions” with them were insulting. Some scholars suggest that Socrates’s attack on these men caused them to trump up the charge of sedition."
Do you really sees this as an act from Lemmings?
It is obvious to mee that Socarates was a too big threat for the elite.
This elite then made populsim about the thing and used the undeveloped
courtsystem to get him convicted.
This shows only that the time constant for the trials where
non-existant.
The result would also have been different with judges in place and also
if Socrates vision of free speech and argumentation would have been
ruling.
When I now have read the history I’m even more convinced that AD is the
general answer, not elitism.
You cannot compare court system with DD. DD should be compared by RD or
other government systems.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
mG:- OK an interesting story…:
“Hidden behind these accusations was the ego of the elite. In the Agora
of the time, Socrates would purposefully, through question and answer, reveal that “great men” actually knew nothing. For a wealthy person or citizen in high esteem of Athens, Socrates’s “discussions” with them were insulting. Some scholars suggest that Socrates’s attack on these men caused them to trump up the charge of sedition."
mG: Do you really sees this as an act from Lemmings?
-M: YES!
mG: It is obvious to mee that Socarates was a too big threat for the elite.
This elite then made populsim about the thing and used the undeveloped courtsystem to get him convicted.
-M: Yes, the parasitical-elite always try to manipulate the popular
opinion.
This is a very common example of LEMMINGISM that is very relevant
today.
By contrast, SD2 would create a hierarchy of non-lemmings who would not be manipulatable by the parasitical-elite.
mG: This shows only that the time constant for the trials where non-existant. The result would also have been different with judges in place and also if Socrates vision of free speech and argumentation would have been ruling.
-M: This is more lemmingism that could be overcome by elite-non-lemmingism.
mG: When I now have read the history I’m even more convinced that AD is the
general answer, not elitism.
M: This is your elite anti-elitism. Please stop with the
contradictions.
[Mark cries in pain. :( ]
mG: You cannot compare court system with DD. DD should be compared by RD or
other government systems.
-M: The court was ran in a DD manner, which allowed for lemmingism.
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
Mark skrev:
MG:- I rest my case..mG:- OK an interesting story…:“Hidden behind these accusations was the ego of the elite. In the Agoraof the time, Socrates would purposefully, through question and answer,reveal that “great men” actually knew nothing. For a wealthy person orcitizen in high esteem of Athens, Socrates’s “discussions” with themwere insulting. Some scholars suggest that Socrates’s attack on thesemen caused them to trump up the charge of sedition."
mG: Do you really sees this as an act from Lemmings?-M: YES!
MG:- So, IF this is some kind of elitism from my side, what fucking difference does THAT mean? Start discuss the ITEM instead.mG: It is obvious to mee that Socarates was a too big threat for the elite.This elite then made populsim about the thing and used the undevelopedcourtsystem to get him convicted.-M: Yes, the parasitical-elite always try to manipulate the popularopinion.This is a very common example of LEMMINGISM that is very relevanttoday.By contrast, SD2 would create a hierarchy of non-lemmings who would notbe manipulatable by the parasitical-elite.
mG: This shows only that the time constant for the trials where non-existant. The result would also have been different with judges in place and also if Socrates vision of free speech and argumentation would have been ruling.-M: This is more lemmingism that could be overcome byelite-non-lemmingism.mG: When I now have read the history I’m even more convinced that AD is thegeneral answer, not elitism.-M: This is your elite anti-elitism. Please stop with thecontradictions.[Mark cries in pain. :-( ]
MG:-Well, but when this discussion started you made the same sweeping criticism for the DD of Athens. Now we are down to the courts at least. Again even todays court system of USA or many other countries can be heavily critziced.mG: You cannot compare court system with DD. DD should be compared by RD orother government systems.-M: The court was ran in a DD manner, which allowed for lemmingism.
In Sweden no members of the jury is people from the street. And the
judge is not elected. We se here that we also have problems, recently
there hase been a lot of non-motivated convictions due to the lack of
insight in the wok of the elite in the courts.
I can use both your and the Swedish court system to proof that there
are problems with RD and elitism.
You can point on the shortcomings in americans courts but then you have
to take in all factors, you have an elected judge more or less and non
educated jury.
It’s not enough to count out DD, Mark.
All we have is a need for better courts all over the world.
And maybe here would be the best application possible for SD2, people
responsible for the courts.
But if trials where possible to last for years, than AD would work even
better due to more fact processing in total and more information flow
which would gain quality in the decisions.
I can not se any of the wrong convictions made the last years here in
Sweden to be possible if AD would have been used in the courts.
Unfortunately it is not acceptable or pratical to keep people in prison
for years to wait for a fair trial to finish.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
[…]
-M: This is more lemmingism that could be overcome byelite-non-lemmingism.
mG: When I now have read the history I’m even more convinced that AD is the general answer, not elitism.
-M: This is your elite anti-elitism. Please stop with the contradictions. [Mark cries in pain. :-( ]
mG:- So, IF this is some kind of elitism from my side, what fucking difference does THAT mean?-M: The fact is that your elite anti-elitism is contradictory, so quit talking about elitism like it automaticly is something bad.
mG: Start discuss the ITEM instead.
-M: Fine. Stop building arguments with faulty foundations.
mG: You cannot compare court system with DD. DD should be compared by RD orother government systems.
-M: The court was ran in a DD manner, which allowed for lemmingism.
-M: The only manditory DD element is in determining the size of the board, 1, 3 or 5.
Directors are still free to referendums, but this isn’t manditory.
mG:[…]I can use both your and the Swedish court system to proof that there
are problems with RD and elitism.
-M: No you can’t, because you would be representing a position against
non-representation,
and you would be taking an elite position against elitism.
PLEASE STOP WITH THE CONTRADICTIONS!
Your empirical examples are only anecdotal, and don’t override the CONTRADICTIONS.
-mG: You can point on the shortcomings in americans courts but then you
have
to take in all factors, you have an elected judge more or less and non
educated jury. It’s not enough to count out DD, Mark.
-M: RAW LOGIC is enough to discount DD.
mG:[…]AD would work even better due to more fact processing in total and more information flow
which would gain quality in the decisions. […]
-M: Information, no matter high quality, when filtered by lemmings, is still lemmingized.
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
-This is not really leading to anything.
Anyway, I stop this “debate” here and start from now to implement the
rules under:
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/157428f…
From now on I will only comment singel issue in separated threads.
If there are more than one issue I will choose which one to comment and
leave the other until it’s presented in a separate thread.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
If I am not wrong, you think and build some of your assertions and boasting on the idea that:
" anti elitism is a contradiction in terms, it automatically makes you into an elitist "
(do correct me if I phrased it incorrectly)
Well…
Every body here has given hints that you should drop it, your usage is only shared by yourself, which is fine really, but do not complain that others have another comprehension.
You want to prove that your usage is valid? Show occurrences of it on the web!
By the way, I also am anti elitist! :-)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:10:53PM 0700, Mark wrote:
( ]-M: This is your elite anti-elitism. Please stop with the contradictions. [Mark cries in pain. :
mG:- So, IF this is some kind of elitism from my side, what fucking difference does THAT mean?-M: The fact is that your elite anti-elitism is contradictory, so quittalking about elitism like it automaticly is something bad.
mG: Start discuss the ITEM instead.-M: Fine. Stop building arguments with faulty foundations.
+1
New discussion
Answer
ec: If I am not wrong, you think and build some of your assertions and boasting on the idea that:
" anti elitism is a contradiction in terms, it automatically makes you into an elitist " (do correct me if I phrased it incorrectly) Well…
-M: Yes, agreed.
ec: Every body here has given hints that you should drop it, your usage is only shared by yourself, which is fine really, but do not complain that
others have another comprehension.
-M: I will share the TRUTH with you whether you like it or not.
ec: You want to prove that your usage is valid? Show occurrences of it on the web!
-M: Your own elite anti-elitism is its own occurance on the web.
ec: By the way, I also am anti elitist! :-)
-M: That is because you are a comfortable contradiction-monkey.
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
mange: The lemming talk is bullshit. It can be said for any democratic system.
The AD system can handle it and erase it
-M: Lets see it demonstrated at a community level of 200 or more.
MG:- I can’t wait…
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
Hello Eric.
My motive for supporting this list is due to practical reason. Tiaktiv in its ideological work has not proper support in local area / Croatia, so we are stagnating up there. We realised that as long as we are dealing with pretty progressive political concepts, we need to work on global/World level in order to create partnerships and power that will move us forward, eventually enabling movement for informatic political age.
Having this in mind, we are practically forced to create step by step strategy with other simmilar thinkng initiatives so we could do something worthy in global manner. So, I can say that our motive for all this is need.
What interests me, as long as I can say that your NPSFORUM list is relativelly vivid, is do you have such a need that would make you interested in creating some sort of partnerships, working on commonly accepted strategy? Or are you evetnually interested in Magnuss, Emmanuels, Markuss and my try of creating firdst step forward in this moment or you have some other approach that could bring us some progress in our initiatives?
ATB,
Gale
+1
New discussion
Answer
[Gale]: “What interests me, as long as I can say that your NPSFORUM list is relativelly vivid, is do you have such a need that would make you interested in creating some sort of partnerships, working on commonly accepted strategy? Or are you evetnually interested in Magnuss, Emmanuels, Markuss and my try of creating firdst step forward in this moment or you have some other approach that could bring us some progress in our initiatives?”
[Latest comments by Eric]: Hi Gale.
Because of very heavy work commitments at the moment, I may not be able to act promptly on any common initiative, slowing it down.
Furthermore, I do not know what initiative you all have in mind. If you all are thinking of writing or looking for softwares, then I could only assist in the non-technical aspects.
Personally, I would think that designing and developing TOPS is top priority because the softwares eventually acquired have to be supportive of TOPS, and be TOPS compliant.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
+1
New discussion
Answer
lpc1998 wrote:
[Gale]:“What interests me, as long as I can say that your NPSFORUM list isrelativelly vivid, is do you have such a need that would make youinterested in creating some sort of partnerships, working on commonlyaccepted strategy? Or are you evetnually interested in Magnuss,Emmanuels, Markuss and my try of creating firdst step forward in thismoment or you have some other approach that could bring us someprogress in our initiatives?”[Latest comments by Eric]:Hi Gale.Because of very heavy work commitments at the moment, I may not be ableto act promptly on any common initiative, slowing it down.Hey Eric!
There is no problem with time issue. I suppose we can find out the way to solve this problem out.
Furthermore, I do not know what initiative you all have in mind. If youall are thinking of writing or looking for softwares, then I could onlyassist in the non-technical aspects.
I started writing you big post, but there is no need for such. The fact is that if we find common grounds of our initiatives, we can join these grounds or we can join parts of them we agree with. These parts, thanks to its support are getting exponentionaly more relevant than if we run them alone, so I personaly am willing to let ideological stuff that is supported only by Tiaktiv beside in a way to articulate issues that have chance to penetrate widely around.
If we possibly find enough grounds to create strong visions and strategy, than we could really start some worldwide initiative that could actually starting matter. Me personaly knowing potential of the several members of this group and knowing other groups potentials see this as possible scenario. Of course, if there is enough interest in such.
Personally, I would think that designing and developing TOPS is toppriority because the softwares eventually acquired have to besupportive of TOPS, and be TOPS compliant.
Cool.
In topic “Time for action?” Pether pointed out we need some form of communication especially for stuff such as TOP system and other big issues need. Do you agree with this? If yes, will you let us create it for you, or will you join us? If no, why not?
I am asking you this as long as it is the worst thing when people realise they where working on non needed stuff, so it would be better to find it our before we get engaged in that.
So, when we do it, at least its basic paramethers, we could start working on tops. Do you agree with this sequence?
ATB,
Gale
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
I’m glad to see that you have realised that action will take us further
than discussions, Gale!
On the way we will all find new input and help the rest of the group.
Eric, I’m not a programmer either, this is one of AD:s short
comings…being created from the beginning by programmers, we still
lack some real action…
That’s why we are where we are if you ask me.
With a lot of competent and potentially very focused programmers not
knowing of our existence.
Hating the current system as we are but currently using their
creativitity to games of other less productive projects.
Some worked hard on Linux and are now feeling a great emptiness..
Many of the needs I pointed out is fixed in no time by some (few)
competent programmers.
Next step would be feedback from us, the programmers and others, and
further development such as security issues 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hi MG,
If what you mean is that you know of competent programmers who would help us with the writing of the softwares needed for TOP, this is really very interesting indeed. We should not miss this opportunity.
I have already told Gale in this thread to proceed with what he has in mind and then we could know whether we could make them work.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Eric,
Well, if I knew about competent programmers I had already asked them..
I hope that some in this list is or have contact with enough competent
programmers at least.
If not we could at least promote our task better together than
separately in order to involve programmers.
I think that Pether is one important link 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Thanks, MG
Best Regards Eric LimMG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric,
Well, if I knew about competent programmers I had already asked them..
I hope that some in this list is or have contact with enough competent
programmers at least.
If not we could at least promote our task better together than
separately in order to involve programmers.
I think that Pether is one important link 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/897
Hey Eric!
How is it going on? I havent seen you lately on top-politics, I hope it is not due to eventual dissapointment in group. I do understand we make many, many mistakes, that we are far from profesional and succesfull in this very time.
Yet, what I see up there is several individuals willing to join forces, willing to create community and to act as a community, stuff every single one of us needs in a process of empowerment of his own ideas.
Nevertheless, I am contacting you due to partial interest you might find interesting. We (Magnus, Emmanuel, Markus and I) did agree to create some site that would enable TOP politics and system plurality.
This is what I find to be one thing. Before that part, I suppose we should more clearly define parts we distint to other world initatives, what makes us potentially relevant. In this very time it is actually believing in political movement due to global informatisation of political process. Second thing is of course, TOP.
More clearly we define these things, more of us support them creating political capital, more easy we will penetrate with these ideas to others. Sharing these ideas might eventually spread the base for our progresive thoughts every single initiative needs to become relevant.
So, as long as I can notice this articualtion part is something you are pretty familiar too, I would really be glad if you eventually decide to join us up in this part. Second thing I find important with your character is systematic aproach which is higly desired thing in these abstract spheres.
Me personally am willing to support you completely in this part of the group project due to your abilites, so please think about this possibility.
I hope you will give it one more chance :-)
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
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/897
Hey Eric!
How is it going on? I havent seen you lately on top-politics, I hope it is not due to eventual dissapointment in group. I do understand we make many, many mistakes, that we are far from profesional and succesfull in this very time.
Yet, what I see up there is several individuals willing to join forces, willing to create community and to act as a community, stuff every single one of us needs in a process of empowerment of his own ideas.
Nevertheless, I am contacting you due to partial interest you might find interesting. We (Magnus, Emmanuel, Markus and I) did agree to create some site that would enable TOP politics and system plurality.
This is what I find to be one thing. Before that part, I suppose we should more clearly define parts we distint to other world initatives, what makes us potentially relevant. In this very time it is actually believing in political movement due to global informatisation of political process. Second thing is of course, TOP.
More clearly we define these things, more of us support them creating political capital, more easy we will penetrate with these ideas to others. Sharing these ideas might eventually spread the base for our progresive thoughts every single initiative needs to become relevant.
So, as long as I can notice this articualtion part is something you are pretty familiar too, I would really be glad if you eventually decide to join us up in this part. Second thing I find important with your character is systematic aproach which is higly desired thing in these abstract spheres.
Me personally am willing to support you completely in this part of the group project due to your abilites, so please think about this possibility.
I hope you will give it one more chance :-)
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
Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
“- In NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” <lpc1998@…> wrote:
————— Forwarded messageto-———-From: lpc1998Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for EricTo: top-politics@googlegroups.comHi Gale, thank you, I am OK.Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group
develop its organizational structures based on some ideas Iproposed
last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time theywere
proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposedthem
could not come up with better alternatives and the group could notmove
forward.
Is it some internet group, or?
I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top-
politics to
respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on theproposal
to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal coulddetermine the number of members who could participate in group’sinitiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
I am also having difficulties with the google archive with longthreads broken up into pieces with some of them missing makingconversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better
site,
that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have controlof
the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want thegroup to
develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the siteexclusively
in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion oftheir
individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making):
http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5b
Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if you please.
Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by
someone who
claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth andanyone
who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down.He is
obviously evangelizing a religion.:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of arumentation as I could notice.
As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against
us in
our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personalinitiatives
and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives thatwould eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community thattruly
upholds democratic principles and ideals.Absolutely.
PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
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
[Gale]: “Is it some internet group, or?”
[Latest comments from Eric]: Yes, it is. [Gale]: “Why wait? Do! :)” [Latest comments from Eric]: How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages? [Gale]:BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
[Latest comments from Eric]: No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority inrealisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me a reply.
I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies. Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there. [Gale]: “Link on wiki:http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site."
[Latest comments from Eric]: The link is not working. Who is the owner of this site? Do you have access to the site tools? Best Regards Ericillegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
“- In NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” wrote:
————— Forwarded messageto-———-From: lpc1998Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for EricTo: top-politics@googlegroups.comHi Gale, thank you, I am OK.Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group
develop its organizational structures based on some ideas Iproposed
last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time theywere
proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposedthem
could not come up with better alternatives and the group could notmove
forward.
Is it some internet group, or?
I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top-
politics to
respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on theproposal
to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal coulddetermine the number of members who could participate in group’sinitiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
I am also having difficulties with the google archive with longthreads broken up into pieces with some of them missing makingconversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better
site,
that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have controlof
the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want thegroup to
develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the siteexclusively
in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion oftheir
individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making):
http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5b
Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if you please.
Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by
someone who
claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth andanyone
who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down.He is
obviously evangelizing a religion.:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of arumentation as I could notice.
As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against
us in
our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personalinitiatives
and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives thatwould eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community thattruly
upholds democratic principles and ideals.Absolutely.
PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
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
lpc1998 wrote:
[Gale]:“Is it some internet group, or?”[Latest comments from Eric]:Yes, it is.Can you send the link?
[Gale]:“Why wait? Do! :)”[Latest comments from Eric]:How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?
You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to you to set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to help you, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you.
[Gale]:BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority inrealisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?[Latest comments from Eric]:No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority inrealisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me a reply.
OK. This part is not of mine concern as long as I am not adminstrator.
I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies.Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there.
I do agree with you. I hope we will soonly find some way to increase transaprence of the group. This thing wit wiki might help, yet there are several mor things we could do also.
[Gale]:“Link on wiki:http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/NetworkI suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creatinggroup documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitionsand other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.”[Latest comments from Eric]:The link is not working.
OK. In this very moment it works. Please, if you find some time, check it out and say what do you think about it?
Who is the owner of this site? Do you have access to the site tools?That is wiki free hosting server. Something as google in a way of group hosting. Markus did have several thoughts about getting new domain, yet, from my point of view domain and hodting would be useless if there is no much interest in this. So, lets see is there interest at all?
ATB;
Gale
Best RegardsEricillegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1"—- In NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” wrote:—0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844— ne small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the————— Forwarded message-———-From: lpc1998Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for EricTo: top-politics@googlegroups.comHi Gale, thank you, I am OK.Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a groupto
develop its organizational structures based on some ideas Iproposedlast year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time theywereproposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposedthemcould not come up with better alternatives and the group could notmoveforward.Is it some internet group, or?I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top-politics torespond to my request to notify the rest of the members on theproposalto create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal coulddetermine the number of members who could participate in group’sinitiatives, apart from the individual initatives.Why wait? Do! :)BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority inrealisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?I am also having difficulties with the google archive with longthreads broken up into pieces with some of them missing makingconversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a bettersite,that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have controlofthe site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want thegroup todevelop into a community. We cannot afford to have the siteexclusivelyin the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion oftheirindividual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.In this moment we started wiki.( This was the process of decision making):http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5bLink on wiki:http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/NetworkI suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creatinggroup documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitionsand other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if youplease.Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled bysomeone whoclaims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth andanyonewho disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down.He isobviously evangelizing a religion.:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort ofarumentation as I could notice.As individuals, we are no match against the forces set againstus inour promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personalinitiativesand ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives thatwould eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community thattrulyupholds democratic principles and ideals.Absolutely.ATB;GalePS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was thereason you did not indulge Erics proposal?ATB,Gale—0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Google-AttachSize: 5930[Gale]:“Is it some internet group, or?”[Latest comments from Eric]:Yes, it is.
[Gale]:“Why wait? Do! :)”[Latest comments from Eric]:How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?[Gale]:
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in
realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?[Latest comments from Eric]:No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority in
realisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me areply.I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies.Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there.[Gale]:"Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/ bin/view/ Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating
group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions
and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.“[Latest comments from Eric]:The link is not working. Who is the owner of this site? Do you have accessto the site tools?Best RegardsEric<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style=”PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
"—- In NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” <LPC1998@…>wrote:
>
>-———- Forwarded message-———-
> From: lpc1998
> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:200700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for Eric
> To: top-politics@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK.
>
> Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group
to
> develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I
proposed
> last year. Those ideas met with strongobjections at the time they
were
> proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed
them
> could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not
move
> forward.
Is it some internet group, or?
> I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top
politics to
> respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the
proposal
> to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could
> determine the number of members who could participate in group’s
> initiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in
realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
> I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long
> threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making
> conversationsimpossible to follow. If you guys can find a better
site,
> that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control
of
> the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the
group to
> develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site
exclusively
> in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of
their
> individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making):
http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5b
Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating
group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions
and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could doit for you if you
please.
> Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by
someone who
> claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and
anyone
> who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down.
He is
> obviously evangelizing a religion.
:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of
arumentation as I could notice.
> As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against
us in
> our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal
initiatives
> and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that
> would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that
truly
> upholds democratic principles and ideals.
Absolutely.
ATB;
Gale
PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the
reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
ATB,
Gale
—0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844—
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
[Gale]: “Is it some internet group, or?”
[Eric]: Yes, it is. [Latest comments from Gale]: Can you send the link? [Latest comments from Eric]: OK, by personal email with some introductory notes. [Gale]: “Why wait? Do! :)” [Eric]: How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages? [Latest comments from Gale]: “You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to youto set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to help you, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you."
[Latest comments from Eric]:The best course of action now for this particular initiative is to do nothing. Let everything including the emotions settle down first and until such time when it is generally felt that an orgainsed approach serves the individual initiatives better, that vigorous group review and criticisms are a valuable resource for the upgrading and improvements of the individual initiatives and that weaknesses in the individual initiatives need not be doggedly defended like a valuable inheritance.
Apart from Markus, you and me, the group is obviously not ready for the initiative and practical democracy. It is amusing that a suggestion to elect someone to co-ordinate the discussions could lead to so much suspicions and unease. On hindsight, I should not have called that someone “a leader”. I should have called him “a donkey” since he is going to do all the donkey work, but then no one may want to be a donkey. 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
lpc1998 wrote:
[Gale]:“Is it some internet group, or?”[Eric]:Yes, it is.[Latest comments from Gale]:Can you send the link?[Latest comments from Eric]:OK, by personal email with some introductory notes.No TOP? OK, if you have the reason to do such thing.
[Gale]:“Why wait? Do! :)”[Eric]:How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?[Latest comments from Gale]:“You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to youto set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to helpyou, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you.”[Latest comments from Eric]:The best course of action now for this particular initiative is to do nothing. Let everything including the emotions settle down first and until such time when it is generally felt that an orgainsed approach serves the individual initiatives better, that vigorous group review and criticisms are a valuable resource for the upgrading and improvements of the individual initiatives and that weaknesses in the individual initiatives need not be doggedly defended like a valuable inheritance.
OK. I am following your lead :-)
Apart from Markus, you and me, the group is obviously not ready for the initiative and practical democracy. It is amusing that a suggestion to elect someone to co-ordinate the discussions could lead to so much suspicions and unease. On hindsight, I should not have called that someone “a leader”. I should have called him “a donkey” since he is going to do all the donkey work, but then no one may want to be a donkey.
Absolutely.
ATB,
Gale
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey Eric!
There was a little irc talk between me and Emmanuel about this issue. I decided to start it as long as there is a lot of empty action which is demotivating and dispowering thing.
As long as I am strongly for empowerment of our thoughts and initiatives, it seems to me that this part of choosing leader who would be attractor for the next step is esential thing. At least, I do not see other ways. OK, I can notice there is a suggetsion of Magnus that we should create procedures, yet for this part there is even less interest in this very moment.
From the last mail you sent to me, I can notice you are not interested
in this at this moment, but may I ask you is there any sense that those who acknowledged this part, meaning, Emmanuel, Markus, you and me try this little game, to see can it lead anywhere?
What I can notice is that 4 of us can make a little gravity center in this group, that could be used by other members who decided not to take a part of this process in this very time.
If we eventually do that, I hope that many pending concepts that showed in this group could get used and realised which is a key moment if we want to move on.
All in all, I find your proposal to be simple and straight, able to solve this ongoing problem. As long as I lost some of mine motivation due to much of the empty work, I am actually forced to wait for your opinion about should we move on from the position we are at right now? Should those who showed interest to move on in this way, take the part of responsiblity and really move on?
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
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey Eric!
There was a little irc talk between me and Emmanuel about this issue. I decided to start it as long as there is a lot of empty action which is demotivating and dispowering thing.
As long as I am strongly for empowerment of our thoughts and initiatives, it seems to me that this part of choosing leader who would be attractor for the next step is esential thing. At least, I do not see other ways. OK, I can notice there is a suggetsion of Magnus that we should create procedures, yet for this part there is even less interest in this very moment.
From the last mail you sent to me, I can notice you are not interested
in this at this moment, but may I ask you is there any sense that those who acknowledged this part, meaning, Emmanuel, Markus, you and me try this little game, to see can it lead anywhere?
What I can notice is that 4 of us can make a little gravity center in this group, that could be used by other members who decided not to take a part of this process in this very time.
If we eventually do that, I hope that many pending concepts that showed in this group could get used and realised which is a key moment if we want to move on.
All in all, I find your proposal to be simple and straight, able to solve this ongoing problem. As long as I lost some of mine motivation due to much of the empty work, I am actually forced to wait for your opinion about should we move on from the position we are at right now? Should those who showed interest to move on in this way, take the part of responsiblity and really move on?
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
I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM 0700, lpc1998 wrote:
~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the processgoing, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work andother commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who canspare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
-~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond.
Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future. Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group. Best Regards Eric Limecharp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the processgoing, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work andother commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who canspare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
lpc1998 wrote:
This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond.OK.
Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group.
I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leader to lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is good to find another solution to solve the problem.
For an example, I do not care too much about 50%+1 if there is some issue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, and not to follow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart. So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in this very moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts to harm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see this moving on.
ATB,
Gale
Best RegardsEric Limecharp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :)echarpOn Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the processgoing, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work andother commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who canspare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
-0-1763348847-1150379648=:29711Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Google-AttachSize: 1450This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond.Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group.Best RegardsEric Lim<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style=“PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid”>
echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
I have already voted*for* gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process
> going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and
> other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can
> spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
[Eric]: "Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.
Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group." [Gale]: “I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leaderto lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is good to find another solution to solve the problem."
For an example, I do not care too much about 50%+1 if there is some issue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, and not to follow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart. So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in this very moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts to harm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation."
[Latest comments from Eric]: I understand your concerns, but isn’t this also be an experiment in true democracy? In true democracy, leaders are elected to serve and not to rule. And leadership is earned and not imposed top-down. The true leader is one where his people follow him by choice and not by coersion. I am confident you have what that could make a true leader. On the hand, the voters must learn to support their leader of choice so that he could provide them with effective leadership in problem and issue solving. Failing to do so would mean that the voters are not ready for full true democracy or it is not yet a viable option for them. In other words, they are not ready to have the final say which is an integral part of the definition of democracy. The bottomline is whether the voters and their leader could work together as an effective team which can solve problems or issues with the collective wisdom and resources. In a truly democratic decision, there is no conflict between the 50%+1 and the 50%-1. See here for what is meant by a democratic decision: http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=28 Anyway, let us find our way step by step. When we come to a problem, we shall find a solution for it. 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hello, Eric!
Ok, now I’m back..
It seems that I misunderstood your meaning of the word “leader”.
You know this can be a very important word and we need to be sure of
what we mean in this early stages.
Now when I see that you instead mean more of “administrator” I fully
support your idea.
If an administrator is needed due to the workload on everybody, I
support the idea of electing one.
I vote also for Gale.
Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, like http://leparlement.org/test
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
like http://leparlement.org/test"
We do need a better forum with voting capabilies. Regarding http://leparlement.org/test, 1 does it have an archive for all the messages and how it is accessed?; 2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archive or where it is located?; 3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?; 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and 5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add to the forum when they are required? Best Regards Eric LimMG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, Eric!
Ok, now I’m back..
It seems that I misunderstood your meaning of the word “leader”.
You know this can be a very important word and we need to be sure of
what we mean in this early stages.
Now when I see that you instead mean more of “administrator” I fully
support your idea.
If an administrator is needed due to the workload on everybody, I
support the idea of electing one.
I vote also for Gale.
Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, like http://leparlement.org/test
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:56:58AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
Hi [magnus], it is great that you are joining the group.Definitely great!!!
You already have 2 votes from Gale and me. Now we need at least one more votefrom either [echarp] or [markus] to confirm your admission into the group withvoting rights or a casting vote from Gale. Let us follow the new memberadmission procedures.
+1 from me too
[magnus]:“Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,like http://leparlement.org/test”We do need a better forum with voting capabilies. Regardinghttp://leparlement.org/test,1 does it have an archive for all the messages and how it is accessed?;
They are all accessible right on the web. A standard mbox could also be distributed.
There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.
2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archiveor where it is located?;
Yes, all posts are accessible with an url like
http://leparlement.org/id, the id is auto generated from the post’s
subject, thus it should look rather readable.
3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?;
They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be made anonymous.
4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and
There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itself is under the GPL.
5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add tothe forum when they are required?
I’m working on avatars right now, for more colorful discussions :)
Next are electoral lists and filters, which would be equivalent to moderators that each user can choose at his convenience.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
distributed."
[Latest comments from Eric]: Would you elaborate on this? [Latest comments from echarp]:“There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.”
[Latest comments from Eric]: Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other directories? [Latest comments from echarp]: “They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in apopup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be made anonymous."
[Latest comments from Eric]: Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List? [Eric]: “4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;” [Latest comments from echarp]: There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itselfis under the GPL."
[Latest comments from Eric]:Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them when the time comes.
Best Regards Eric Limecharp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:56:58AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
Hi [magnus], it is great that you are joining the group.Definitely great!!!
You already have 2 votes from Gale and me. Now we need at least one more votefrom either [echarp] or [markus] to confirm your admission into the group withvoting rights or a casting vote from Gale. Let us follow the new memberadmission procedures.
+1 from me too
[magnus]:“Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,like http://leparlement.org/test”We do need a better forum with voting capabilies. Regardinghttp://leparlement.org/test,1 does it have an archive for all the messages and how it is accessed?;
They are all accessible right on the web. A standard mbox could also be distributed.
There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.
2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archiveor where it is located?;
Yes, all posts are accessible with an url like
http://leparlement.org/id, the id is auto generated from the post’s
subject, thus it should look rather readable.
3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?;
They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be made anonymous.
4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and
There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itself is under the GPL.
5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add tothe forum when they are required?
I’m working on avatars right now, for more colorful discussions :)
Next are electoral lists and filters, which would be equivalent to moderators that each user can choose at his convenience.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat file.A standard mbox could also be distributed.Would you elaborate on this?
Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list server.
The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P network of servers.There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existingpost. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, anadmin will then only be able to remove content.Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for theTOP directory only in your website without having access to the otherdirectories?
Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical flaw with a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a post.
The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other server.
Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any number of electoral list.They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in apopup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future,but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could bemade anonymous.Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?
Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and there is no filter yet.
But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server will see all available lists, and will choose which one they want to follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.
For example a poll asking:
To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning of a line).
Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could be +4.
A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.
An electoral list acts as a moderators group.
Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and treaties, everybody’s post is his own.Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them whenthe time comes.4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The softwareitself is under the GPL.
echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
like http://leparlement.org/test"
However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus? Best Regards Eric Limecharp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat file.A standard mbox could also be distributed.Would you elaborate on this?
Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list server.
The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P network of servers.There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existingpost. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, anadmin will then only be able to remove content.Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for theTOP directory only in your website without having access to the otherdirectories?
Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical flaw with a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a post.
The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other server.
Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any number of electoral list.They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in apopup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future,but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could bemade anonymous.Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?
Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and there is no filter yet.
But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server will see all available lists, and will choose which one they want to follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.
For example a poll asking:
To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning of a line).
Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could be +4.
A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.
An electoral list acts as a moderators group.
Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and treaties, everybody’s post is his own.Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them whenthe time comes.4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The softwareitself is under the GPL.
echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
lpc1998 wrote:
Many thanks, Emmanuel, for your patience in explaining the functioning of http://leparlement.org/test . Magnus’ proposal quoted below sounds interesting. The site appears superior to Google’s and it comes with the free services of a software engineer too:The Magnus Proposal:“Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,like http://leparlement.org/test”However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?When I think of moving to another platform, I think of how many people can it stand in this very moment. Google has showed it can carry about 100 people with no bigger problems which is respectfull. On the other hand, software Emmanuel is developing is not yet tested, especially not in bigger numbers, so we have no tradition we can rely on.
In order of not going into eventual dead end, my suggestion is to make sure into this software capabilities, help Emmanuel to eventually improve them in order to be maximally safe that we are not going in wrong direction. In this way, what I find very important, we do not have to worry about loosing capital this group already has as long as it is promoted around at several places, but we can make it actually prosper.
As long as Leparlement is actually copying whole communication that is being done at top – politics, we do not either risk anything if we keep top politics as basic node and Leparlement as an option everyone can actually choose to be primary one.
ATB,
Gale
Best RegardsEric Limecharp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:al copyright laws andAn mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flatfile.Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing listserver.A standard mbox could also be distributed.Would you elaborate on this?
The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2Pnetwork of servers.Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logicalflaw with a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be madeimpossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove apost.The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware ofit, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one otherserver.There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existingpost. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, anadmin will then only be able to remove content.Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for theTOP directory only in your website without having access to the otherdirectories?Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage anynumber of electoral list.Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, andthere is no filter yet.But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the serverwill see all available lists, and will choose which one they want tofollow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.For example a poll asking:- are software patents stupid?To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mailcontaining the stringThey are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in apopup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future,but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could bemade anonymous.Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginningof a line).Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result couldbe +4.A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, whichmeans that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the samelist could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.An electoral list acts as a moderators group.-0-820335436-1152550427=:58328Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Google-AttachSize: 4179Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws andtreaties, everybody’s post is his own.echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them whenthe time comes.4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The softwareitself is under the GPL.Many thanks, Emmanuel, for your patience in explaining the functioning of http://leparlement.org/test . Magnus’ proposal quoted below sounds interesting. The site appears superior to Google’s and it comes with the free services of a software engineer too:The Magnus Proposal:“Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,
like ”http://leparlement.org/test" target=_blank>http://leparlement.org/test“
However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?Best RegardsEric Lim<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style=”PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
> > A standard mbox could also be distributed.
>
> Would you elaborate on this?
An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat
file.
Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list
server.
> > There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing
> > post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an
> > admin will then only be able to remove content.
>
> Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the
> TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other
> directories?
The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P
network of servers.
Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical
flaw witha server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made
impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a
post.
The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of
it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other
server.
> > They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a
> > popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future,
> > but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be
> > made anonymous.
>
> Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?
Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any
number of electoral list.
Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and
there is no filter yet.
But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server
will see all available lists, and will choose whichone they want to
follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.
For example a poll asking:
- are software patents stupid?
To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail
containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning
of a line).
Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could
be +4.
A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which
means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same
list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.
An electoral list acts as a moderators group.
> > > 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;
> >
> > There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software
> > itself is under the GPL.
>
> Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shalldiscuss them when
> the time comes.
Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and
treaties, everybody’s post is his own.
echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:42:41AM -0700, illegale wrote:
As long as Leparlement is actually copying whole communication that isbeing done at top – politics, we do not either risk anything if we keeptop politics as basic node and Leparlement as an option everyone canactually choose to be primary one.Just don’t forget that information goes from google groups to the parlement server, not the other way.
google groups => parlement
But you can and are welcome to use parlement, as some of you already do.
Your login is the name you use in your mails, me it’s echarp for example. Do login before you vote, otherwise you will use the “anon” persona which only controls one voice on every issue.
Of course all the votes directly set in mails are accounted for!
Like this one => +1 which is a valid vote used and accounted for.
As the need arise, we can also start other forums in parlement.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+3
New discussion
Answer
So, now it is 5 of us! I am very glad you joined the group :)
Though, as long as you missed the first part of our process, I suppose it might be good if you stated clearly something about your exact goals in the topic what can 4 of us actually do, as long as we are going to use that thread in some of the future issues that are before us. Of course, that is just mere suggestion in order to have these issues in one place, as long as the ship has already sailed.
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
lpc1998 wrote:
[Eric]:“Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group.”[Gale]:“I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leaderto lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is goodto find another solution to solve the problem.”For an example, I do not care too much about 50%+1 if there is someissue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, andnot to follow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart.So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in thisvery moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts toharm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation."[Latest comments from Eric]:I understand your concerns, but isn’t this also be an experiment in true democracy?OK. Lets just keep experiments to moments when it is necessary.
In true democracy, leaders are elected to serve and not to rule. And leadership is earned and not imposed top-down. The true leader is one where his people follow him by choice and not by coersion. I am confident you have what that could make a true leader.
Very kind words, indeed. Thank you. Yet, this is the part where you made your assumptions on not so demanding fields of action as leadership is.
On the hand, the voters must learn to support their leader of choice so that he could provide them with effective leadership in problem and issue solving. Failing to do so would mean that the voters are not ready for full true democracy or it is not yet a viable option for them. In other words, they are not ready to have the final say which is an integral part of the definition of democracy.The bottomline is whether the voters and their leader could work together as an effective team which can solve problems or issues with the collective wisdom and resources.
That is it.
In a truly democratic decision, there is no conflict between the 50%+1 and the 50%-1. See here for what is meant by a democratic decision:http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=28
OK. Though, every single decision regularly have some who do not like it. That is the though part of the whole process.
Anyway, let us find our way step by step. When we come to a problem, we shall find a solution for it.
Ad hoc. I agree.
ATB,
Gale
Best RegardsEric Lim—0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bitX-Google-AttachSize: 2881R>[Eric]:“Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.
Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group."[Gale]:“I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leader
to lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is good
to find another solution to solve the problem.”
For an example, I do not care too much about 50%+1 if there is some
issue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, and
not tofollow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart.
So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in this
very moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts to
harm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation."[Latest comments from Eric]:I understand your concerns, but isn’t this also be an experiment in true democracy?In true democracy, leaders are elected to serve and not to rule. And leadership is earned and not imposed top-down. The true leader is one where his people follow him by choice and not by coersion. I am confident you have what that could make a true leader.On the hand, the voters must learn to support their leader of choice so that he could provide them with effective leadership in problem and issue solving. Failing to do so would mean that the voters arenot ready for full true democracy or it is not yet a viable option for them. In other words, they are not ready to have the final say which is an integral part of the definition of democracy.The bottomline is whether the voters and their leader could work together as an effective team which can solve problems or issues with the collective wisdom and resources.In a truly democratic decision, there is no conflict between the 50%+1 and the 50%-1. See here for what is meant by a democratic decision:Anyway, let us find our way step by step. When we come to a problem, we shall find a solution for it.Best RegardsEric Lim
—0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963—
—0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963—
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the
reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
-Sorry, what do you mean? I have responded to the idea of electors list as well as you have? This and more is needed.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
It seems that Eric is especting from you to send some gorup notice. As long as this stuff is between two of you I suppose it is up to you to get a common language for solution of this lets say 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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Magnus
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:31, MG wrote:
Eric,Well, if I knew about competent programmers I had already asked them..I hope that some in this list is or have contact with enough competentprogrammers at least.If not we could at least promote our task better together thanseparately in order to involve programmers.I think that Pether is one important link here.Sorry to interfere here.
For now I think Emmanuel and I are a start to create something. I hope I’ll find some more time soon.
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
MG wrote:
I’m glad to see that you have realised that action will take us furtherthan discussions, Gale!Of course.
On the way we will all find new input and help the rest of the group.Eric, I’m not a programmer either, this is one of AD:s shortcomings…being created from the beginning by programmers, we stilllack some real action…That’s why we are where we are if you ask me.With a lot of competent and potentially very focused programmers notknowing of our existence.Hating the current system as we are but currently using theircreativitity to games of other less productive projects.Some worked hard on Linux and are now feeling a great emptiness..Many of the needs I pointed out is fixed in no time by some (few)competent programmers.Next step would be feedback from us, the programmers and others, andfurther development such as security issues etc.
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
[Gale]: “Hey Eric!
There is no problem with time issue. I suppose we can find out the way to solve this problem out."
…..
“I started writing you big post, but there is no need for such. The
fact
is that if we find common grounds of our initiatives, we can join these
grounds or we can join parts of them we agree with. These parts, thanks
to its support are getting exponentionaly more relevant than if we run
them alone, so I personaly am willing to let ideological stuff that is
supported only by Tiaktiv beside in a way to articulate issues that
have chance to penetrate widely around.
If we possibly find enough grounds to create strong visions and strategy, than we could really start some worldwide initiative that could actually starting matter. Me personaly knowing potential of the several members of this group and knowing other groups potentials see this as possible scenario. Of course, if there is enough interest in such."
…..
“In topic “Time for action?” Pether pointed out we need some form of communication especially for stuff such as TOP system and other big issues need. Do you agree with this? If yes, will you let us create it for you, or will you join us? If no, why not?
I am asking you this as long as it is the worst thing when people realise they where working on non needed stuff, so it would be better to find it our before we get engaged in that.
So, when we do it, at least its basic paramethers, we could start working on tops. Do you agree with this sequence?"
[latest Comments by Eric]: In that case, you all may proceed with the initiatives and that is the only way we can find out whether we could make them work.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Acknowledged.
ATB,
Gale
lpc1998 je napisao/la:
[Gale]:“Hey Eric!There is no problem with time issue. I suppose we can find out the wayto solve this problem out.”…..“I started writing you big post, but there is no need for such. Thefactis that if we find common grounds of our initiatives, we can join thesegrounds or we can join parts of them we agree with. These parts, thanksto its support are getting exponentionaly more relevant than if we runthem alone, so I personaly am willing to let ideological stuff that issupported only by Tiaktiv beside in a way to articulate issues thathave chance to penetrate widely around.If we possibly find enough grounds to create strong visions andstrategy, than we could really start some worldwide initiative thatcould actually starting matter. Me personaly knowing potential of theseveral members of this group and knowing other groups potentials seethis as possible scenario. Of course, if there is enough interest insuch.”….."In topic “Time for action?” Pether pointed out we need some form ofcommunication especially for stuff such as TOP system and other bigissues need. Do you agree with this? If yes, will you let us create itfor you, or will you join us? If no, why not?I am asking you this as long as it is the worst thing when peoplerealise they where working on non needed stuff, so it would be betterto find it our before we get engaged in that.So, when we do it, at least its basic paramethers, we could startworking on tops. Do you agree with this sequence?"[latest Comments by Eric]:In that case, you all may proceed with the initiatives and that is theonly way we can find out whether we could make them work.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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hi all,
I’m new to this list, and I’m not really sure to be in the right place
for me, debates are already very heavy, I misses the beginning, English
is my natural langage, some concepts and even more some initials are
completly unknown to me (I can guess DD or RD, but not SD2…). If
anybody can drop me a link to make the goals and the context of the list
clearer for me, he’s welcome.
Never mind, I think that I may contribute to your thoughts by a way or
an other. I had an idear that may seems ridiculous to many people, but
that may open to many new things, or maybe to nothing ness.
I called it “Proportional Voting”. It consists to allow people to divice
their voice between all given choices when they vote.
I have already published it here:
http://www.shouldexist.org/story/2006/3/27/104616/838 and here:
http://brokenclock.free.fr/blog/blogs/index.php?blog=5&p=48&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<http://brokenclock.free.fr/blog/blogs/index.php?blog=5&p=48&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1>.
It seems to be hard to implement, but I do not think it really is at
least for a electronic way to do it (I called it Proportional e-Voting
system or PeV). I have already write some code to implement it, using
PHP and JavaScript to show what it should be like. You can view it here:
http://brokenclock.free.fr/scripts/pev/pev-0.0.1.php (WARNING! This page
weights about 750ko and requires JavaScript!). I think the code should
be improved in many ways (the triangle is not isosceles, you have only 3
choices to choose between, the page may be lighter), but I did not have
much time to give to this idear, and I do not really know if anybody
will find it really useful.
But if one person would find it great, he may be on this list.
Let me know what you think.
Best regards,
BrokenClock — Blog: http://brokenclock.free.fr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
+0
New discussion
Answer