Fwd: Ancient Athens didn't have politicians. Is there a lesson for us?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Atlee <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM Subject: Ancient Athens didn't have politicians. Is there a lesson for us? To: undisclosed list <[email protected]> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dec 2012-Jan 2013 Co-Intelligence Institute fundraiser progress report: Funds raised so far: $3650 // Our target: $20,000 Percentage of needed funds raised so far: 18.3% People on our list: 1780 // Days remaining in this fundraiser: 22 Thank you to the 34 people who have responded so far! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you value our work, please participate with a donation. See the end of this mailing for how to contribute. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/ancient-athens-didnt-have-politicians-is-ther short link: http://post.ly/A6cdv Few people realize that in ancient Athens - the original democracy from which modern democracies supposedly grew - no one was elected to be a representative. There were no public offices elected by the people. They just didn't have politicians.* They had voting, of course, because it was a democracy. But they voted for proposed laws, not for candidates. And they had a Council of 500 (the "boule") who proposed laws for all the citizens to vote up or down in Athens' participatory Assembly. Ah! So that's a powerful role, being able to create the proposals that the people voted on! So how were those 500 councilmembers chosen? Well, believe it or not, those powerful people were ordinary citizens who had been chosen by lot - by random selection. And Athens' democracy didn't stop there. No way! Nearly EVERYONE holding public office or serving on a governing board was an ordinary person who had been chosen by lot. (The only exceptions were top military and financial posts, which constituted about 100 of the nearly 1000 government positions to be filled.) In other words, Athens - that ancient city-state we consider "the birthplace of democracy" - was governed by randomly selected ordinary citizens. (For more detail, see http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=6&greekEn... web search for Athens random selection) This random selection approach - technically called "sortition" or "allotment" - was THE method for selecting people in government positions and, especially, in the Council of 500. Here's how it worked: Each of Athens' ten tribes (which were themselves defined to contain people from diverse territories and clans) picked 50 of its members at random to be on Athens' Council of 500. No citizen could serve on the Council more than twice, but most citizens served at least once in their lifetimes. Within the Council, one of the ten tribal groups was chosen - by lot - to serve as presidents for the Council's various sub-activities for about a month. Furthermore, within that group of 50 presidents a chairman was chosen - again by lot - to preside over the other presidents for just one day. Why only one day? The chairman of the Council's presidents was the most powerful office in Athens, holding the state seal and the keys to the state's treasury and archives. So we find that ordinary Athenian citizens - like ordinary Americans or other citizens of modern democracies - could EACH aspire to preside over their ENTIRE government. However, those ordinary Athenians - UNLIKE most ordinary modern citizens - ACTUALLY had an excellent chance of serving in that lofty office. It is estimated that "approximately one half of all Athenian citizens would, at some point during their lives, have the privilege and responsibility of holding this office, arguably the closest equivalent to a Chief Executive in the Athenian democracy." (ref: the link given above) The Athenians were obsessed with the necessity of random selection for a democracy. They believed - quite rightly, it seems to me - that random selection not only made corruption very difficult but also involved the entire citizenry very directly in the challenges and powers of government. In other words, random selection made Athens a true government of, by, and for its citizens. For them, what made a democracy a democracy was random selection with few, if any, officials being elected. Thus no politicians. (We might also note that although they also supported voting, they were wary of mob rule and gave it a name: ochlocracy.**) As the Wikipedia article on Athenian democracy says, "elections would favor those who were rich, noble, eloquent and well-known, while allotment spread the work of administration throughout the whole citizen body, engaging them in the crucial democratic experience of, to use Aristotle's words, 'ruling and being ruled in turn'". Compare that with our electoral system. Electing people to office actually makes us a republic like the Roman Empire more than a democracy like ancient Athens. We elect representatives... but who is this "we" and how representative are these "representatives"? In the United States only around half the voting age population votes in presidential election years and even fewer vote in other election years - and fewer yet in primary elections. So we don't actually practice majority rule, because when - as is usually the case - 50-52% of voters elects the president, that's only about a quarter of the whole electorate, and an even smaller proportion of the total population. For example, in 2012 Obama won reelection with 62,615,406 popular votes. Although that was 51% of all the voters, it was only 27% of the voting age population (233 million) and only 20% of the whole population (313 million). Is this majority rule? When we add to that pseudo-majoritarianism the media manipulations and lies that characterize electoral politics, the incredibly high percentage of white male millionaires who get elected to national office, the lobbying and back room deals that shape our laws and budgets, the number of broken promises and state secrets that make a mockery of "political platforms" and "answerability", and the highly corruptible campaign financing systems that allow money to thoroughly overwhelm the principle of "one person one vote" - the whole idea of elections being popular self-government looks more mythic than real. At that point the Athenian allotment approach starts to look a lot more like democracy than what we have in most so-called "democracies" today. The only aspect of our political system that looks more democratic than Athens' is our definition of who is a citizen. In Athens only free adult men born in Athens of Athenian parents were considered citizens. Most modern democracies consider any person born or naturalized in their country to be a citizen. So let's apply such modern standards of citizenship to a sortition-based political system like Athens had. Just as we have certain qualifications - age, residency, registration, criminal status, etc. - for people to perform certain citizenship functions like voting, jury duty, getting on the ballot as a candidate and so on, we could have certain agreed upon (and evolving) standards for being selected by lot for serving (for example) in an ad hoc citizen deliberative council or in an ongoing citizen legislature. Give it some thought. I know the idea of randomly selecting people to make laws or hold important positions seems like a recipe for chaos, stupidity and serious dysfunction. But think again. We randomly select juries - and how stupid are they? They could certainly be improved - and we should certainly improve them. But random selection is not where the problems with juries lie. Take a moment to let it sink in that a whole city-state managed its democracy primarily by random selection for about 200 years - an era comparable to the American republic. We could and should use sortition more in our own politics and government, to reduce our dependence on politicians, to reduce the role of money and corruption, and to engage more citizens in the hard and powerful work of government. There are dozens of ways to do this. For one one approach, consider http://co-intelligence.org/CDCUsesAndPotency.html And here is a short (4.5 minutes) video about one of the few places where this citizen-empowering principle is used in the United States: http://healthydemocracy.org/video/ Coheartedly, Tom --------- Notes: * In its broadest dictionary definition a "politician" can include anyone involved in government or in elections. That broad definition could include campaign managers, pundits, partisan spokespeople, dictators, appointed bureaucrats, and hired policemen as well as other government employees. Even though they may qualify technically, most of us don't think of such people as "politicians". In the essay above, the narrower, more familiar definition is used: someone who runs for or holds elected office, especially professionally. ** Ochlocracy or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase "mobile vulgus" meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology. (excerpted from Wikipedia) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TO SUPPORT THE CO-INTELLIGENCE INSTITUTE & TOM ATLEE'S WORK... Please send a tax deductible donation of any amount -- $10, $25, $50, $100, $500 or more -- to The Co-Intelligence Institute PO Box 493 Eugene, OR 97440 or use your Visa or MasterCard - or Paypal - to make an online donation at http://co-intelligence.org/donations.html or tell some friends you know about our work, and invite them to support it. Do let me know when you've mailed a donation, so I can add it to our tally right away. Including your email address on your check will help me keep track of your gift. You can also use the link above to arrange a monthly donation. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For a contribution of $100 or more we will send a signed copy of "Empowering Public Wisdom". +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440 http://www.co-intelligence.org / http://tom-atlee.posterous.com Read THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY - http://www.taoofdemocracy.com EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM - http://empoweringpublicwisdom.us REFLECTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY ACTIVISM - http://evolutionaryactivism.com ________________________________ -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Ancient Athens didn't have politicians. Is there a lesson for us?
No, at least for America where we have a Constitution "of, by and for the People". Athens didn't have a government of the People. mark
Letting people literally become the state is the best way to protect Democracy. But how efficient is this? The good thing is that today we have the internet and thus it is much easier to have a decentralized state by the people, thus solutions like these could for some things scale without costing a lot. I wonder if there has been any mathematical research for the amount of decentralization that is required so that a hegemonic class doesnt emerge. I'd prefer it to be mathematical because I know a lot of opinions on this matter which are always interrelated with one's political agenda.(reformist,anarchist,revolutionary marxist,capitalist) . 2013/1/11 George Dafermos - TBM <[email protected]>
i suppose that was probably meant as a joke, right? x, g.
No, at least for America where we have a Constitution "of, by and for the People". Athens didn't have a government of the People.
mark
P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
I wonder if there has been any mathematical research for the amount of decentralization that is required so that a hegemonic class doesnt emerge.
This problem often viewed as solvable through *static* limitations such as a cap on property holdings. But I see this specifically as a *dynamic* problem that must be solved by adjusting the *origin* of property accumulation. I claim profit (the difference between consumer_price and owner_costs) is the origin of property accumulation and we can solve this problem by creating businesses/organizations that are co-owned by crowds of consumers who choose to impose a Terms of Operation upon themselves that: 1.) Treats Product as the investor's return. This means only consumers will invest to become co-owners, and only in the amount they predict they will need of that product. This also means the product will not be sold (except for surplus as explained below), as it is already pre-allocated to those who need it. This eliminates profit for those co-owners (they pay only costs as owners) and also eliminates sales tax since there is no final transaction (the co-owner of a dairy does not buy milk from himself because he owns his portion already). 2.) Treats Profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it. This means the current owners will charge profit against latecomers when surplus is sold to those with insufficient co-ownership, but that profit is immediately invested on behalf of the person who paid it so that all consumers incrementally gain the co-ownership they need to control the production they must have. This auto-distributes property to those willing to pay for that expansion, thereby avoiding the usual problem of over-accumulation. 3.) Treats Promise-to-work as another kind of investment so we can trade skills before production begins and eliminate the traditional paying of wages and also avoid income tax. 4.) Allows any subgroup to secede and retain their portion of ownership when there is a conflict. This is a (rough) attempt to solve the Tyranny of the Majority issue. Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Since the demise of the Athenian model -which was physically made possible thanks to the slave labour so that every citizen had the time to govern or learn how to govern things when their turn came up- the question is still how to get rid of kaisers, cesars, sultans, kings, chars, empires, presidents, ministers etc that capture the social power and turn against the people. A political economy equation underlies this question of course which involves several sub questions: i. how to convince the bullying social class elements who socialise and continuously and creatively reproduce themselves through complex historical structures, ii. how to de-construct these structures and transform them into new version of Athenian models that work transnationally as well as in their own contexts, iii. and what is the productive model that will allow people to take role in such modern direct governance models so they could function. On 11 January 2013 20:14, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]> wrote:
Letting people literally become the state is the best way to protect Democracy. But how efficient is this?
The good thing is that today we have the internet and thus it is much easier to have a decentralized state by the people, thus solutions like these could for some things scale without costing a lot.
I wonder if there has been any mathematical research for the amount of decentralization that is required so that a hegemonic class doesnt emerge.
I'd prefer it to be mathematical because I know a lot of opinions on this matter which are always interrelated with one's political agenda.(reformist,anarchist,revolutionary marxist,capitalist) .
2013/1/11 George Dafermos - TBM <[email protected]>
i suppose that was probably meant as a joke, right? x, g.
No, at least for America where we have a Constitution "of, by and for the People". Athens didn't have a government of the People.
mark
P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
A basic income http://p2pfoundation.net/Basic_Income would allow people to take part in governance, ie a random selected group to focus for a week on a particular issue. It would also deal with the problem of *over production*which is endemic in developed countries, and avoid the focus on providing jobs, as the necessary solution to poverty, which contributes to increasing production, accompanied by exhorting people to consume more than they need. Anna On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Since the demise of the Athenian model -which was physically made possible thanks to the slave labour so that every citizen had the time to govern or learn how to govern things when their turn came up- the question is still how to get rid of kaisers, cesars, sultans, kings, chars, empires, presidents, ministers etc that capture the social power and turn against the people. A political economy equation underlies this question of course which involves several sub questions: i. how to convince the bullying social class elements who socialise and continuously and creatively reproduce themselves through complex historical structures, ii. how to de-construct these structures and transform them into new version of Athenian models that work transnationally as well as in their own contexts, iii. and what is the productive model that will allow people to take role in such modern direct governance models so they could function.
On 11 January 2013 20:14, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]> wrote:
Letting people literally become the state is the best way to protect Democracy. But how efficient is this?
The good thing is that today we have the internet and thus it is much easier to have a decentralized state by the people, thus solutions like these could for some things scale without costing a lot.
I wonder if there has been any mathematical research for the amount of decentralization that is required so that a hegemonic class doesnt emerge.
I'd prefer it to be mathematical because I know a lot of opinions on this matter which are always interrelated with one's political agenda.(reformist,anarchist,revolutionary marxist,capitalist) .
2013/1/11 George Dafermos - TBM <[email protected]>
i suppose that was probably meant as a joke, right? x, g.
No, at least for America where we have a Constitution "of, by and for the People". Athens didn't have a government of the People.
mark
P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 22:58:52 PM +0100, Orsan Senalp wrote:
Since the demise of the Athenian model -which was physically made possible thanks to the slave labour so that every citizen had the time to govern or learn how to govern things when their turn came up...
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller. They used tools, clothes, foods, weapons, houses, medicines and what not that, by and large were manufactured: - very close, in places they could realistically visit if they already weren't out of their door - with procedures simple, visible, touchable enough to allow almost every citizen with a working brain to "get" how they worked and grasp at least the biggest implications. and everybody else on the planet lived in the same way, therefore it wasn't possible for somebody living on the opposite side of the planet to, say, pollute so much that it would harm YOUR life. Or send drones your way in a few hours, for that matter, or block your communications. IMHO, such conditions were the main if not only thing that made it possible for every citizen to "learn how to govern things when their turn came" without making a mess. There was much less to learn than today. Marco http://mfioretti.com
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller.
That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in 2013. These tools include the scientific method and, as Apostolis points out, the language of mathematics. Using iterative refinement and re-factoring of commonly held knowledge (i.e. science) to help make decisions actually eliminates some forms of complexity. Currently, much of our time is spent developing ad hoc solutions to work around problems in our political economy, and in our ignorance even compounding them, rather than doing mutually productive work. -Karl
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 15:19:28 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller.
That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in 2013.
I don't think that this, even if true, is sufficient, or maybe even relevant. For example, here in 2013 we also have computer interfaces that handle the complexity of computers much better than 10/15 years ago. If what you write were true, or sufficient, by now (almost) ALL computer users would be able to use their computer decently, rather than just as digital typewriters or super television sets. Complexity is complex, no matter how you dress it, and people are different. Some "bleed" when thinking about fiscal issues, others when exposed to biology. You can't eliminate that. This said, I do agree that current technology can do and should do a LOT to expose and eliminate unnecessary complexity period, regardless of who has to make decisions afterwards. But expecting that literally intended direct democracy can work in a society that wants to use nanotechnology, global telecom networks and so on is not realistic, imho. Marco
Some thoughts then. Surely "random" democracy can work if we split society on professions. Then We pass a law that forces any knowledge that affects society to be open sourced. Since any person in a profession can be chosen to govern, we continue to have strong guarantees. Now, Personally, I have noticed that almost 99% of my decisions/opinions are based on incomplete knowledge. I had been taught by math professors that were great in their mathematical work but then reverted in old style imprecise decision making in their real lives. One person simply cant acquire all knowledge. That is why I am building a project in which knowledge is propagated through trust. Think of it like a forkable wiki with twitter features, ie new pages are sent to you only by those you trust. I didnt have any time to look at it from a theoretical point, but It tries to deal with the problem of complexity.it tries to empower people to make their decisions more accurately. Liquid democracy is similar in nature. You give your voting rights to a trusted person. So the way forward in my opinion is this. We build democratic tools for society. We analyze their weaknesses and then start all over again. 2013/1/14 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 15:19:28 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller.
That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in 2013.
I don't think that this, even if true, is sufficient, or maybe even relevant.
For example, here in 2013 we also have computer interfaces that handle the complexity of computers much better than 10/15 years ago.
If what you write were true, or sufficient, by now (almost) ALL computer users would be able to use their computer decently, rather than just as digital typewriters or super television sets.
Complexity is complex, no matter how you dress it, and people are different. Some "bleed" when thinking about fiscal issues, others when exposed to biology. You can't eliminate that.
This said, I do agree that current technology can do and should do a LOT to expose and eliminate unnecessary complexity period, regardless of who has to make decisions afterwards. But expecting that literally intended direct democracy can work in a society that wants to use nanotechnology, global telecom networks and so on is not realistic, imho.
Marco
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 12:18:51 PM +0200, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
You give your voting rights to a trusted person.
as long as "trusted" includes "can be replaced easily, if I realize I made a mistake to give him/her trust", yes, that's a big step forward What matters is constant, 2-way communication between the voters and the voted, and and accountability. Some delegation is unavoidable, IMO, for the reasons I've already written. At the same time, leaving experts alone cannot work by definition, just because they ARE specialists/experts. Even IF they are all 100% honest, competent and 100% interchangeable, because sooner or later they lose the big picture.
So the way forward in my opinion is this. We build democratic tools for society. We analyze their weaknesses and then start all over again.
of course, see above. Endless iteration is unavoidable (it's part of life, some would also postulate that it is part of the very _definition_ of life, right?) Marco
A)Yea, I agree. In order to have accountability and a two-way communication, I think that we'd better split distant trust relations into many strong close relations. For example, I like the ideas of a person, but i cant communicate with him, nor does he care for my opinion. That person might have people that work with him and trust him. One of them is trusted by one of my friends. I d better create a link with that friend of mine, than a direct link. This way, we can turn an impersonal link into a personal one. What I d like to have would be a personal link to every expert that I need so as that he makes the decisions for me, or that he provides me with information so that I make the decisions. That ,of course, requires the strengthening of our current social relations. These are just general thoughts. B) There are cases where "random" democracy can still work. It depends on the context, ex enterprise department, local business, local community. One important thing to note is that current politicians are from a technical perspective as incompetent as any average person. For example, what are the studies of Barack Obama? Does he have the knowledge to decide on economics? Thus, the funny thing is that even with the current structure of the state, having random people in political positions will be much better than today. The above discussion only applies when we also want to elect the bureaucrats, the technical personnel that constitutes the state or part of a political party. 2013/1/14 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 12:18:51 PM +0200, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
You give your voting rights to a trusted person.
as long as "trusted" includes "can be replaced easily, if I realize I made a mistake to give him/her trust", yes, that's a big step forward
What matters is constant, 2-way communication between the voters and the voted, and and accountability. Some delegation is unavoidable, IMO, for the reasons I've already written. At the same time, leaving experts alone cannot work by definition, just because they ARE specialists/experts. Even IF they are all 100% honest, competent and 100% interchangeable, because sooner or later they lose the big picture.
So the way forward in my opinion is this. We build democratic tools for society. We analyze their weaknesses and then start all over again.
of course, see above. Endless iteration is unavoidable (it's part of life, some would also postulate that it is part of the very _definition_ of life, right?)
Marco
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
On Monday, January 14, 2013 09:44:58 AM M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 15:19:28 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller.
That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in 2013.
I don't think that this, even if true, is sufficient, or maybe even relevant.
That was kind of my point. The complexity you perceive is relative and not really relevant to whether you want people involved in making the laws they are subject to. To say that the average person is not capable of helping to organize society is an endorsement for authoritarianism. Will you stand for direct democracy, or will you be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats? -Karl
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 00:46:20 AM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2013 09:44:58 AM M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 15:19:28 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model" possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and smaller.
That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in 2013.
I don't think that this, even if true, is sufficient, or maybe even relevant.
That was kind of my point. The complexity you perceive is relative
I seriously think you misunderstood me (it could be my fault, of course) No, certain complexity isn't relative at all. Not if you want to live in a certain way, at least. Please do read all my previous messages in this thread. I'm not talking of laws artificially made overly complex on _purpose_ (a huge problems of our time) to keep power. I'm talking of the intrinsical complexity of technical issues today vs those the average Athenian had to face 2500 years ago. See the examples I already made.
To say that the average person is not capable of helping to organize society is an endorsement for authoritarianism. Will you stand for direct democracy, or will you be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats?
A critique to 100% direct democracy isn't necessarily an endorsement of authoritarianism. What on earth makes you suggest that? This said, if YOU really want to frame the issue in that way (which is misleading IMO, but OK): I'd rather be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats that are really, really accountable, rather than from continuous vote of many individuals who are (including ME, of course) thouroughly disinterested and incompetent on many topics, and therefore, in many cases, would hit the right decision just out of luck or statistics. Marco
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 02:17:07 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I seriously think you misunderstood me (it could be my fault, of course)
I'd rather be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats that are really, really accountable, rather than from continuous vote of many individuals who are (including ME, of course) thouroughly disinterested and incompetent on many topics,
Marco, You seem to be saying that the world is too complex for you to be involved in making policy. The nation-states of the world today are all authoritarian in that a tiny fraction of the population create policy which affects everyone. It doesn't mean so much to say we are equal "under the law" if we aren't all equal "over the law". Large-scale coordination can overwhelm the individual, but that's the point of avoiding authoritarian government. We must continue to break down barriers between the government and the governed, and IMO your participation is needed. Democracy is about participation in creating outcomes, and has nothing in particular to do with voting. If you aren't competent to create policy then you have no business participating in a popularity contest for bureaucrats who can only claim to be competent. That is sham democracy. A final thought from me on complexity: It *IS* relative to one's ability to understand and manage the underlying dynamics, and yes, choosing not to "live a certain way" can be key to achieving simplification. -Karl
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 13:13:45 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 02:17:07 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I seriously think you misunderstood me (it could be my fault, of course)
I'd rather be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats that are really, really accountable, rather than from continuous vote of many individuals who are (including ME, of course) thouroughly disinterested and incompetent on many topics,
Marco,
You seem to be saying that the world is too complex for you to be involved in making policy.
No. You missed the "really, really accountable part"
People are very good at knowing what they want , but not very good at how to get what they want. That is the reason why they are fooled by politicians. That is why groups that use direct democracy are very close to the needs of the people but are more conservative and inefficient than a group that has some sort of accountable hierarchical structure. Of course, the second kind of group is more prone to stop working for the needs of the people. That is why I consider this an open problem that we should discuss. I can see an analogy between a computer system and society: A new technology emerges that provides a new functionality || / \ A new social structure emerges to use this technology and create wealth || A new program is created that uses that technology || The new social structure or program requires specific kinds of privileges to work. The more privileges it gets, the more prone it is to change its functionality or have privilege escalation. Historically speaking, the emergence of rulers and subordinates was due to such a technological change. When people learned how to farm, that gave them the ability to have a surplus amount of food stored. But then, someone had to protect that surplus during drought, giving small rations to the people so that the village survives. 2013/1/19 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 13:13:45 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 02:17:07 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I seriously think you misunderstood me (it could be my fault, of course)
I'd rather be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats that are really, really accountable, rather than from continuous vote of many individuals who are (including ME, of course) thouroughly disinterested and incompetent on many topics,
Marco,
You seem to be saying that the world is too complex for you to be involved in making policy.
No. You missed the "really, really accountable part"
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
By the way, if we think of groups as the actors in politics, in which internal ideas on tactics are spread. in order to act, promote its views to the public, then having an easy way to create subgroups of groups. or creating a common group in which the smaller groups do not dissolve , as easy as a click of a button could create a political structure that more accurately reflects the needs of the people. Nowdays, we make compromises. 2013/1/19 Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]>
People are very good at knowing what they want , but not very good at how to get what they want.
That is the reason why they are fooled by politicians. That is why groups that use direct democracy are very close to the needs of the people but are more conservative and inefficient than a group that has some sort of accountable hierarchical structure. Of course, the second kind of group is more prone to stop working for the needs of the people.
That is why I consider this an open problem that we should discuss.
I can see an analogy between a computer system and society:
A new technology emerges that provides a new functionality || / \ A new social structure emerges to use this technology and create wealth || A new program is created that uses that technology
|| The new social structure or program requires specific kinds of privileges to work. The more privileges it gets, the more prone it is to change its functionality or have privilege escalation.
Historically speaking, the emergence of rulers and subordinates was due to such a technological change. When people learned how to farm, that gave them the ability to have a surplus amount of food stored. But then, someone had to protect that surplus during drought, giving small rations to the people so that the village survives.
2013/1/19 M. Fioretti <[email protected]>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 13:13:45 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 02:17:07 PM M. Fioretti wrote:
I seriously think you misunderstood me (it could be my fault, of course)
I'd rather be ruled by bureaucrats and technocrats that are really, really accountable, rather than from continuous vote of many individuals who are (including ME, of course) thouroughly disinterested and incompetent on many topics,
Marco,
You seem to be saying that the world is too complex for you to be involved in making policy.
No. You missed the "really, really accountable part"
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:19 AM, George Dafermos - TBM <[email protected]> wrote:
i suppose that was probably meant as a joke, right? x,
Hah, I guess I should have clarified. I mean "nominally" or legally it has a government of, by, and for the People since the Constitution remains the "highest" Law of the United States. Such as it is, if one were to take the issues to court on where it was failing, the courts would have to uphold this standard and ideal. The fact that the People have let their government deteriorate through neglect, and the void of power, left thereby, be filled by those with less noble ideals is a shame. But, nonetheless, I don't think it can copy Greece's model of democracy, where it was supposed to be an indivisible unit. mark
Dear P2P, I dont think the American Constitution has ever been "of by and for" the people, as we , and the rest of the readers, were meant to interpret it. For one thing: who where the "people"? Certainly not the blacks or the indians, or the women, for that matter. Or the poor. I think that all Constitutions wrap in very beautiful terms the interests of a minority of powerful interests, that, the actual powers are intent to protect and carry on protecting. See for instance what is happening nowadays in Europe. But it is true that, in the internet era, if we, the majority of citizens WANT to change this, we could do it. Thanks for keeping in contact. Best regards to all. Carmen ________________________________ De: Mark Janssen <[email protected]> Para: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> CC: Tom Atlee <[email protected]> Enviado: Viernes 11 de enero de 2013 2:05 Asunto: Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: Ancient Athens didn't have politicians. Is there a lesson for us? On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Ancient Athens didn't have politicians. Is there a lesson for us?
No, at least for America where we have a Constitution "of, by and for the People". Athens didn't have a government of the People. mark _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Carmen Irurzun Anton <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear P2P, I dont think the American Constitution has ever been "of by and for" the people, as we , and the rest of the readers, were meant to interpret it. For one thing: who where the "people"?
Well this is where it gets complicated, because of the involvement of the Catholic Church with "E Pluribus Unum" -- in order to really understand why and how the US Constitution gets worshiped you have to know how Jesus and the Church enters in. Also, how that got counterposed to "Novus Ordo Seclurum" -- the occult symbology about a "new world order" on the back of the $1 bill.
Certainly not the blacks or the indians, or the women, for that matter.
I used to think the same way, but know it's not that simple. mark
Dear Mark, It would be helpful if, instead of just hinting at alternative ideas and explanations, you would give some links to illustrate how your thinking has developed. Thanks. On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]>wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Carmen Irurzun Anton <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear P2P, I dont think the American Constitution has ever been "of by and for" the people, as we , and the rest of the readers, were meant to interpret it. For one thing: who where the "people"?
Well this is where it gets complicated, because of the involvement of the Catholic Church with "E Pluribus Unum" -- in order to really understand why and how the US Constitution gets worshiped you have to know how Jesus and the Church enters in. Also, how that got counterposed to "Novus Ordo Seclurum" -- the occult symbology about a "new world order" on the back of the $1 bill.
Certainly not the blacks or the indians, or the women, for that matter.
I used to think the same way, but know it's not that simple.
mark
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (10)
-
Anna Harris -
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
Carmen Irurzun Anton -
George Dafermos - TBM -
Karl Robillard -
M. Fioretti -
Mark Janssen -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan Senalp -
Patrick Anderson