6 ms·

Liquid democracy is not a power structure that maximize truth seeking.

by SemanticStrengh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mhitza 4y ago
What do you mean, in comparative terms, with your assertion?
mistermann 4y ago
Not in the current spec perhaps, but there's nothing stopping an implementation of a spec from including such functionality.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit. Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking? Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak
  - hkt 4y ago
    The same might be said of electorates in representative democracies. How do you distinguish?
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      the representative voters in a representative democracy are equally deficient and in opposition to a direct democracy, are additionally gamed by PR campaigns that create an artificial partitioning of mental share (mindshare) of brands (political parties). However the persons voting the actual laws, while demagogous and victim of monetary conflict of interests, are humans that are paid to study proposed laws or to propose laws and then to deliberate together. While those people are extremelly deficient, the mere quality of being full time paid is still transcendant over the layman mental abilities in government optimization, while however extremely insufficient in comparison to the utopia a science/evidence based government would create.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        Do you consider the above to be beliefs or knowledge? Do you think being paid causes people to automatically make such important distinctions, consistently and without error?
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit. Is your premise correct? Is the conclusion even correct? I feel like you're speaking colloquially. > Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking? I believe I do, to a substantial degree. And yourself? Do you realize the absurdity (and the consequences) of assigning this responsibility to who we currently assign it to? > Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak Here I partially agree, but I think you lack imagination - I think the joke is just getting warmed up (pun intentional).
avgcorrection 4y ago
It probably isn’t in the way you mean “truth”. A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. And in that world there might be a different “truth” than what we see today in the New York Times and in the Washington Post. Of course you don’t want regular people to rule on behalf of the ruling class: the ruling class does that best. They know their own truth best.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    You want to play the mince-words game? That’s fine. “Most people” would include the minority as well. I say “most” rather than “all” since not everone’s interests will be perfectly represented: compromises will always have to be made. And some things will be decided by way of a majority vote while other things will require a unanimous vote like... exterminating people. I don’t think voting to exterminate a group of people would be more straightforward in a perfect democracy compared to our status quo system. Still though you will always be able to, no matter how I (pithily) define the term, find some absurd, abstract scenario where you can make democracy out to be some devil incarnate political philosophy, in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > You want to play the mince-words game? Calm down now... The way to solve the problem you want to solve is with rights, constitutions, charters and such things, not definitions. Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. That's all I was pointing out. > in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster. I mean we literally have multiple living utility monsters, so that's not a very wise comment to make.

Liquid democracy is not a power structure that maximize truth seeking.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mhitza 4y ago

What do you mean, in comparative terms, with your assertion?

mistermann 4y ago

Not in the current spec perhaps, but there's nothing stopping an implementation of a spec from including such functionality.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit. Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking? Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak
- hkt 4y ago
  The same might be said of electorates in representative democracies. How do you distinguish?
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    the representative voters in a representative democracy are equally deficient and in opposition to a direct democracy, are additionally gamed by PR campaigns that create an artificial partitioning of mental share (mindshare) of brands (political parties). However the persons voting the actual laws, while demagogous and victim of monetary conflict of interests, are humans that are paid to study proposed laws or to propose laws and then to deliberate together. While those people are extremelly deficient, the mere quality of being full time paid is still transcendant over the layman mental abilities in government optimization, while however extremely insufficient in comparison to the utopia a science/evidence based government would create.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      Do you consider the above to be beliefs or knowledge? Do you think being paid causes people to automatically make such important distinctions, consistently and without error?
- mistermann 4y ago
  > when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit. Is your premise correct? Is the conclusion even correct? I feel like you're speaking colloquially. > Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking? I believe I do, to a substantial degree. And yourself? Do you realize the absurdity (and the consequences) of assigning this responsibility to who we currently assign it to? > Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak Here I partially agree, but I think you lack imagination - I think the joke is just getting warmed up (pun intentional).

avgcorrection 4y ago

It probably isn’t in the way you mean “truth”. A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. And in that world there might be a different “truth” than what we see today in the New York Times and in the Washington Post. Of course you don’t want regular people to rule on behalf of the ruling class: the ruling class does that best. They know their own truth best.

guerrilla 4y ago
> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  You want to play the mince-words game? That’s fine. “Most people” would include the minority as well. I say “most” rather than “all” since not everone’s interests will be perfectly represented: compromises will always have to be made. And some things will be decided by way of a majority vote while other things will require a unanimous vote like... exterminating people. I don’t think voting to exterminate a group of people would be more straightforward in a perfect democracy compared to our status quo system. Still though you will always be able to, no matter how I (pithily) define the term, find some absurd, abstract scenario where you can make democracy out to be some devil incarnate political philosophy, in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > You want to play the mince-words game? Calm down now... The way to solve the problem you want to solve is with rights, constitutions, charters and such things, not definitions. Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. That's all I was pointing out. > in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster. I mean we literally have multiple living utility monsters, so that's not a very wise comment to make.