5 ms·

Not "in theory" - it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system. Again, if you don't see that that is obvious then you don't understand

Not "in theory" - it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system. Again, if you don't see that that is obvious then you don't understand the system we're discussing. > It is also a well known fact that it is gonna have a worse type of corruption: incompetence supported by numbers. That's a real criticism, for sure. > It is in practice a system run by influencers. We already have that problem. Our system is a system run by influencers. Enough people will never hear about any candidate or idea that the people who own the media (the state an capitalists) don't want them to hear about.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. You should also prove me that in practice it never happened, because it's impossible. > We already have that problem. No, we don't. Our system is run by politicians, influencers and politicians are different jobs, if you think Obama, Bush , even Trump, could be replaced by Shane Dawson, you're delusional. Short lesson about the difference: politicians have to reach consensus,often with people with very different ideas, influencers value only their own personal popularity and would do anything to increase it. Also: politics is strictly regulated, influencers are not. There's a reason why proponents of liquid democracy are against public funding of free press and politics: that way they only have to buy influencers and not much harder to convince politicians. Putin is financing many influencers and very few politicians. He knows!
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt. then you simply corrupt someone else. corruption is not the act of paying politicians. but those in positions of power that can influence decisions. doesn't matter of they ate politicians or actors or soldiers.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Which is no different than now... Everyone already votes, you can already "corrupt" them all. Arguably, they already are.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > Which is no different than now.. So there's no reason to change if there is no difference... But actually a very important difference exist: the right to vote is a right that can be exercised only going to vote Seems trivial, but that little friction there makes all the difference there is. If you order take away pizza, you're not cooking, if you "donate" your vote to someone else, you're not voting! But someone else is voting 1+N times. Which is not what democracy should be about.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        There's definitely a reason to change. The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. Liquid democracy solves many problems representative "democracy" can't. You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... That's the point. You don't vote on things you don't care about and you do vote on things you do care about. You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. that's not how democracy work. > Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. at all. in fact I am saying to you that what you propose have all the problems of the current system, plus some on its own. > You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... It doesn't matter. People spoke, and they said we don't want it. Anyway, it would not be possible in Italy where the Constitution at art. 84 says "... Vote is *personal* and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" Case closed. > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. You still don't get that technicalities are the tools of tyrannies.
mistermann 4y ago
> That's a real criticism, for sure. There is a temporal component to the problem though: given time and education, voter minds can be upgraded. I think an often unrealized potential side benefit of liquid democracy is that it could be used as a way to sneak proper education in philosophy (logic, epistemology, rhetoric, etc) into the curriculum, like an end run around the department of education and current internet forums that seem almost designed (both software and moderation, like the throttling undesired points of view) to produce a voter base that is unable to think skilfully.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Absolutely. And media reform of some sort as well. I didn't mean to say it was a criticism without an answer :)

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. You should also prove me that in practice it never happened, because it's impossible. > We already have that problem. No, we don't. Our system is run by politicians, influencers and politicians are different jobs, if you think Obama, Bush , even Trump, could be replaced by Shane Dawson, you're delusional. Short lesson about the difference: politicians have to reach consensus,often with people with very different ideas, influencers value only their own personal popularity and would do anything to increase it. Also: politics is strictly regulated, influencers are not. There's a reason why proponents of liquid democracy are against public funding of free press and politics: that way they only have to buy influencers and not much harder to convince politicians. Putin is financing many influencers and very few politicians. He knows!

guerrilla 4y ago
> if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt. then you simply corrupt someone else. corruption is not the act of paying politicians. but those in positions of power that can influence decisions. doesn't matter of they ate politicians or actors or soldiers.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Which is no different than now... Everyone already votes, you can already "corrupt" them all. Arguably, they already are.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Which is no different than now.. So there's no reason to change if there is no difference... But actually a very important difference exist: the right to vote is a right that can be exercised only going to vote Seems trivial, but that little friction there makes all the difference there is. If you order take away pizza, you're not cooking, if you "donate" your vote to someone else, you're not voting! But someone else is voting 1+N times. Which is not what democracy should be about.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        There's definitely a reason to change. The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. Liquid democracy solves many problems representative "democracy" can't. You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... That's the point. You don't vote on things you don't care about and you do vote on things you do care about. You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. that's not how democracy work. > Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. at all. in fact I am saying to you that what you propose have all the problems of the current system, plus some on its own. > You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... It doesn't matter. People spoke, and they said we don't want it. Anyway, it would not be possible in Italy where the Constitution at art. 84 says "... Vote is *personal* and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" Case closed. > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. You still don't get that technicalities are the tools of tyrannies.

mistermann 4y ago

> That's a real criticism, for sure. There is a temporal component to the problem though: given time and education, voter minds can be upgraded. I think an often unrealized potential side benefit of liquid democracy is that it could be used as a way to sneak proper education in philosophy (logic, epistemology, rhetoric, etc) into the curriculum, like an end run around the department of education and current internet forums that seem almost designed (both software and moderation, like the throttling undesired points of view) to produce a voter base that is unable to think skilfully.

guerrilla 4y ago
Absolutely. And media reform of some sort as well. I didn't mean to say it was a criticism without an answer :)