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.<div><br></div><div>For example, I like the ideas of a person, but i cant communicate with him, nor does he care for my opinion.</div>
<div>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.</div><div>This way, we can turn an impersonal link into a personal one.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br>
</div><div>That ,of course, requires the strengthening of our current social relations.</div><div><br></div><div>These are just general thoughts.</div><div><br></div><div>B) There are cases where "random" democracy can still work. It depends on the context, ex enterprise department, local business, local community.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One important thing to note is that current politicians are from a technical perspective as incompetent as any average person.</div><div>For example, what are the studies of Barack Obama? Does he have the knowledge to decide on economics?</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. �</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><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 Mon, Jan 14, 2013 12:18:51 PM +0200, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:<br>
<br>
> You give your voting rights to a trusted person.<br>
<br>
</div>as long as "trusted" includes "can be replaced easily, if I realize I<br>
made a mistake to give him/her trust", yes, that's a big step forward<br>
<br>
What matters is constant, 2-way communication between the voters and<br>
the voted, and and accountability. Some delegation is unavoidable,<br>
IMO, for the reasons I've already written. At the same time, leaving<br>
experts alone cannot work by definition, just because they ARE<br>
specialists/experts. Even IF they are all 100% honest, competent and<br>
100% interchangeable, because sooner or later they lose the big<br>
picture.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> So the way forward in my opinion is this. We build democratic tools<br>
> for society. We analyze their weaknesses and then start all over<br>
> again.<br>
<br>
</div>of course, see above. Endless iteration is unavoidable (it's part of<br>
life, some would also postulate that it is part of the very<br>
_definition_ of life, right?)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Marco<br>
<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>