Some thoughts then. <div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>Since any person in a profession can be chosen to govern, we continue to have strong guarantees.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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 </div>
<div>old style imprecise decision making in their real lives. One person simply cant acquire all knowledge.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div>I didnt have any time to look at it from a theoretical point, but It tries to deal with the problem of <a href="http://complexity.it">complexity.it</a> tries to empower people to make their decisions more accurately.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Liquid democracy is similar in nature. You give your voting rights to a trusted person.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/1/14 M. Fioretti <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mfioretti@nexaima.net" target="_blank">mfioretti@nexaima.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 15:19:28 PM -0800, Karl Robillard wrote:<br>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 04:44:37 PM M. Fioretti wrote:<br>
> > I really think that the first thing that made the "Athenian model"<br>
> > possible in the first place was that their world was much simpler and<br>
> > smaller.<br>
><br>
> That's true that they lived in a less complex environment, but we<br>
> have much better techniques and tools to handle complexity here in<br>
> 2013.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think that this, even if true, is sufficient, or maybe even<br>
relevant.<br>
<br>
For example, here in 2013 we also have computer interfaces that handle<br>
the complexity of computers much better than 10/15 years ago.<br>
<br>
If what you write were true, or sufficient, by now (almost) ALL<br>
computer users would be able to use their computer decently, rather<br>
than just as digital typewriters or super television sets.<br>
<br>
Complexity is complex, no matter how you dress it, and people are<br>
different. Some "bleed" when thinking about fiscal issues, others when<br>
exposed to biology. You can't eliminate that.<br>
<br>
This said, I do agree that current technology can do and should do a<br>
LOT to expose and eliminate unnecessary complexity period, regardless<br>
of who has to make decisions afterwards. But expecting that literally<br>
intended direct democracy can work in a society that wants to use<br>
nanotechnology, global telecom networks and so on is not realistic,<br>
imho.<br>
<br>
Marco<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">
Sincerely yours, </pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"> Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis</pre></span>
</div>