4 ms·

This doesn't tell us anything except that you disagree with most people in Rome.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
First of all it says that in practice liquid democracy failed, and failed hard! It also simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied to practice,unless you have proof of the contrary. Because I have proof of what I say, you can ask the majority of romans what they think of Virginia Raggi's cabinet, she went from 50% of the votes to 14% in 5 years. Also: the same party that elected her has been critique of how she managed the City since few months after her election. https://www.politico.eu/article/the-sack-of-romes-mayor/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-sack-of-romes-mayor/amp/ Please,if you wanna criticize something, at least make the effort of informing yourself on the matter. But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue. Now imagine million of people doing the same while voting on important matters that impact the lives of the citizens of a large city like, say, New York. "I don't like face masks so let's delegate my vote to my friend who owns a pizza restaurant and let me eat there without wearing one". Now tell me that it's actually what you wish for the big apple.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied to when applied to practice... Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. For proof: > ...unless you have proof of the contrary. How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. technically democracy is all bout that. millions of people forming beliefs based on the action of those in power. Virginia Raggi has constructed her reputation of worse mayor ever by herself, you should investigate what she's done, if you really are interested. > How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing? by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that" I presented a case where it didn't. It's enough to disprove it.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > I presented a case where it didn't. No you didn't. Electing a mayor isn't liquid democracy. Not being able to withdraw your vote isn't liquid democracy.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > Not being able to withdraw your vote isn't liquid democracy. So we can definitely conclude that since liquid democracy only exists when it has been enforced once and for all without modifications under the rule of the High Priests of the Liquid Democracy church, it is incompatible with democracy as we know it. If nobody ever wanted that and when they tried in a not so insignificant western country it failed to be accepted in its pure form and has become worse than the other parties after only a decade, are we allowed to believe that LD is not something people want or should want, or not? Do I risk to be prosecuted by the Spanish inquisition for saying it or do I get by with an excommunication and three days under the snow? [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa
    - mistermann 4y ago
      >> Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. > technically democracy is all bout that. For now, to some degree (the degree that it is true, which is unknown). But if you won't exert effort towards sound logic and epistemology, or show any interest when you are mistaken, should you be criticizing others? Granted, Western Culture is also "all about that", but it's not a great excuse. >> How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing? > by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that" Note that I was challenging this: "It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied in practice..." ...but now you are addressing this different claim: >> However, given the kind of people we have running Congress... this system doesn't seem to work that well. Geriatic insider traders who owe their positions to various corporate conglomerates (finance, energy, defense, pharmaceuticals, etc.) have ended up running all the committees, and the evidence that this is a failure can be easily seen by looking at America's crumbling domestic infrastructure. > Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves. Please make sure you understand the concept before arguing against it. Note that by politicians being removed by the equation that specific problem is solved by definition (opening up new problems, of course). As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think a big benefit of some form of direct democracy is that it would offer an opportunity for people to develop skills in various forms of thinking that are taught in philosophy, but not in schools.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I was assuming you had liquid democracy because if you did that's the only way she'd still be in power after being disliked, so your complaint could only mean that you disagreed with the majority. If you had liquid democracy and you didn't like her, then how was this a problem? You would have just been able to outvote her any time she did something you didn't like. The fact that you even had a mayor makes me think you didn't have liquid democracy at all... > But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue. I wouldn't be voting on Rome, which isn't something I really need to know about today. You said you had liquid democracy, so I assumed you did; apparently you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > otherwise you wouldn't be complaining 1. I said kinda 2. You're wrong again. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse. Lucky us she had to respond to the laws and the hierarchy of powers, not only to her supporters or we would be all f***ed by now. For once: they said she could be removed if she didn't do what she said she would, when they tried she refused. End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. We already had these arguments decades ago, "Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation" explains it well, "Tiranny of the structureless" explains why (the) lack of structure, disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable leadership and ensured its malefaction by denying its existence Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. Looks to me that every 5 years someone rediscovers politics and propose solutions that have already failed both in theory and in practice, since the 60s of the past century.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > 1. I said kinda It's either liquid democracy or not. It seems the fact that it was not was a big problem for you. > 2. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse If you say so. > End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. You've misunderstood what it is, which explains why you think having elected a mayor has anything to do with it. > Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. That's why you should have liquid democracy, where you can withdraw your vote at any time for any reason and don't need a delegates permission.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  What is your criteria for failure or success? Is it giving people what they want, or giving people something that they are happy with later?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Is it giving people what they want, or giving people something that they are happy with later? Virginia Raggi failed at both. I think that failing at everything it's pretty much a good definition of failure, do you agree?
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You can say that raggi is a failure, but that doesn't mean that liquid voting is. The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > You can say that raggi is a failure, but that doesn't mean that liquid voting is. She was a failure that won thanks to the lie that "liquid democracy" would empower the people. It didn't. So they both failed. > The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi Are you familiar with the idiom “be careful what you wish for”? Now people know that they do not wish Raggi and all her idiotic ideas ever again.

First of all it says that in practice liquid democracy failed, and failed hard! It also simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied to practice,unless you have proof of the contrary. Because I have proof of what I say, you can ask the majority of romans what they think of Virginia Raggi's cabinet, she went from 50% of the votes to 14% in 5 years. Also: the same party that elected her has been critique of how she managed the City since few months after her election. https://www.politico.eu/article/the-sack-of-romes-mayor/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-sack-of-romes-mayor/amp/ Please,if you wanna criticize something, at least make the effort of informing yourself on the matter. But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue. Now imagine million of people doing the same while voting on important matters that impact the lives of the citizens of a large city like, say, New York. "I don't like face masks so let's delegate my vote to my friend who owns a pizza restaurant and let me eat there without wearing one". Now tell me that it's actually what you wish for the big apple.

mistermann 4y ago
> It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied to when applied to practice... Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. For proof: > ...unless you have proof of the contrary. How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. technically democracy is all bout that. millions of people forming beliefs based on the action of those in power. Virginia Raggi has constructed her reputation of worse mayor ever by herself, you should investigate what she's done, if you really are interested. > How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing? by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that" I presented a case where it didn't. It's enough to disprove it.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > I presented a case where it didn't. No you didn't. Electing a mayor isn't liquid democracy. Not being able to withdraw your vote isn't liquid democracy.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Not being able to withdraw your vote isn't liquid democracy. So we can definitely conclude that since liquid democracy only exists when it has been enforced once and for all without modifications under the rule of the High Priests of the Liquid Democracy church, it is incompatible with democracy as we know it. If nobody ever wanted that and when they tried in a not so insignificant western country it failed to be accepted in its pure form and has become worse than the other parties after only a decade, are we allowed to believe that LD is not something people want or should want, or not? Do I risk to be prosecuted by the Spanish inquisition for saying it or do I get by with an excommunication and three days under the snow? [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa
  - mistermann 4y ago
    >> Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. > technically democracy is all bout that. For now, to some degree (the degree that it is true, which is unknown). But if you won't exert effort towards sound logic and epistemology, or show any interest when you are mistaken, should you be criticizing others? Granted, Western Culture is also "all about that", but it's not a great excuse. >> How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing? > by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that" Note that I was challenging this: "It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied in practice..." ...but now you are addressing this different claim: >> However, given the kind of people we have running Congress... this system doesn't seem to work that well. Geriatic insider traders who owe their positions to various corporate conglomerates (finance, energy, defense, pharmaceuticals, etc.) have ended up running all the committees, and the evidence that this is a failure can be easily seen by looking at America's crumbling domestic infrastructure. > Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves. Please make sure you understand the concept before arguing against it. Note that by politicians being removed by the equation that specific problem is solved by definition (opening up new problems, of course). As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think a big benefit of some form of direct democracy is that it would offer an opportunity for people to develop skills in various forms of thinking that are taught in philosophy, but not in schools.
guerrilla 4y ago
I was assuming you had liquid democracy because if you did that's the only way she'd still be in power after being disliked, so your complaint could only mean that you disagreed with the majority. If you had liquid democracy and you didn't like her, then how was this a problem? You would have just been able to outvote her any time she did something you didn't like. The fact that you even had a mayor makes me think you didn't have liquid democracy at all... > But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue. I wouldn't be voting on Rome, which isn't something I really need to know about today. You said you had liquid democracy, so I assumed you did; apparently you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > otherwise you wouldn't be complaining 1. I said kinda 2. You're wrong again. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse. Lucky us she had to respond to the laws and the hierarchy of powers, not only to her supporters or we would be all f***ed by now. For once: they said she could be removed if she didn't do what she said she would, when they tried she refused. End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. We already had these arguments decades ago, "Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation" explains it well, "Tiranny of the structureless" explains why (the) lack of structure, disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable leadership and ensured its malefaction by denying its existence Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. Looks to me that every 5 years someone rediscovers politics and propose solutions that have already failed both in theory and in practice, since the 60s of the past century.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > 1. I said kinda It's either liquid democracy or not. It seems the fact that it was not was a big problem for you. > 2. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse If you say so. > End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. You've misunderstood what it is, which explains why you think having elected a mayor has anything to do with it. > Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. That's why you should have liquid democracy, where you can withdraw your vote at any time for any reason and don't need a delegates permission.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
What is your criteria for failure or success? Is it giving people what they want, or giving people something that they are happy with later?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Is it giving people what they want, or giving people something that they are happy with later? Virginia Raggi failed at both. I think that failing at everything it's pretty much a good definition of failure, do you agree?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You can say that raggi is a failure, but that doesn't mean that liquid voting is. The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > You can say that raggi is a failure, but that doesn't mean that liquid voting is. She was a failure that won thanks to the lie that "liquid democracy" would empower the people. It didn't. So they both failed. > The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi Are you familiar with the idiom “be careful what you wish for”? Now people know that they do not wish Raggi and all her idiotic ideas ever again.