3 ms·

> Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. technically democracy is all bout that. millions of people form

> 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 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.