h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
That's it really (see subtitle). New additions could be proposed by anybody. Where two or more competing proposals are put forward a vote would be held.
It would be interesting to see whether this method would produce any of the following:
• an internally consistent political manifesto
•
something a political party could stand for office with
• something which elected politicians would have to defend themselves against
• a public forum for non-mainstream political ideas
My guess is that the only way to find out would be to try it and it could well end up with everyone saying "Well, we won't try THAT again!".
[link]
|
| |
I like. The only flaw is that it would require people to think for themselves. |
|
| |
The ultimate focus group. I suspect it will attract a huge number of know-all egotists and ranting trolls, but that's certainly no worse than the current system. (+). |
|
| |
I'm not too sure. It really depends on each person's basic world view of economics - whether you think all people are selfish and need encouragment and bribes to distribute their wealth, or all people are generous and will distribute their wealth out of the goodness of their hearts. So I don't know where you would start from. |
|
| |
Open source software seems to have a clear goal in mind to start off with - this wouldn't other than "it would be interesting". |
|
| |
It would be a pretty exclusive 'public forum', hippo. The vast majority of people in the world don't use the internet. |
|
| |
Does the use of "open-source software-writing methodology" necessarily presuppose that the internet is the vehicle? I'll admit that it does make for a slicker system but the idea stands fine as a notion without it. |
|
| |
my face, I would say that yes, it does. Otherwise how are you going to publicise the project, store the documents and organise the voting? |
|
| |
Whose to say voting should have any part of it? Shirley this is for the group to decide. |
|
| |
//Where two or more competing proposals are put forward a vote would be held.//
Read the idea, you silly man! |
|
| |
But that pre-supposes that democracy is any way to run a country. You're excluding anarchists or dictators from participating in this movement. |
|
| |
Country? I don't recall countries being mentioned. You're just so narrow minded. A prisoner of conventional thought, trapped into traditional ways of thinking. ;0) |
|
| |
Yeah - I re-read the anno after I wrote it (unusual, I know) and thought "movement" would have been better. Just couldn't be arsed to edit it. |
|
| |
//documents originally created with the input of only a
select few// |
|
| |
... a *very* select few academics. Not many people are
aware that Karl Marx probably never did a days labor in
his life, and rarely actually talked to laborers. The
authors of the US constitution, while trying to make it
neutral and fair, still implicitly included the values of the
time (ie. white males only). |
|
| |
I'm not trying to denigrate the idea, but would this really
be immune from such factors? |
|
| |
Also, as [DrCurry] alluded to, it may very well end up - if
it doesn't originate in - a very exclusive domain, even if
that wasn't intended. |
|
| |
People who write open source software are (almost
always) the ones who use it, whereas proprietary software
is written *for other people* (ie. users needs are
theoretical, not emperical - this is blindingly obvious for
many Microsoft products, like their equation editor). This
may be a good analogy here: if you can keep it open to
people who don't really have access to our current system
of representation, then it would work as ideally intended.
But the catch 22 is: if you can get the input of these
people for this project, wouldn't it be better to direct
this input to the current system? |
|
| |
Who votes for higher taxes? Anyone? |
|
| |
No, ok. Well one point down, thats an achievement. |
|
| |
Now point two: Education. Vote yes for money spent on education. Its a yes. |
|
| |
Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I don't think so. |
|
| |
The governing body for the internet is the IETF and it works basically in the way that you suggest (rough consensus and running code is some kind motto). Unfortunately it's very difficult to get work done "through a committe" and IMHO, the projects that work the best are those that are solved by a small group and presented as a solution to everyone else. Leadership has great value, especially in areas of opinion. |
|
| |
Is there one open-source software writing methodology? I thought there are lots ("nobody else cares enough to put in the work, so what I say goes" seems popular). |
|
| |
Seeing an open-ended creative process - be it software development or political thought - structured in terms of serial conflicts between two competing proposals doesn't exactly excite me, either; what about dialectics, what about new ideas that resolve apparent conflicts? |
|
| |
There are many political organizations that introduce more direct, more participatory democratic elements into their decisionmaking. They have advantages and drawbacks. The main advantage to me is the creation of a pool of comitted, non-cynical participants that understand what they're doing; the main drawback, their vulnerability to group manipulation. But, hey, I guess you can always roll back to a version you liked. |
|
| |
"Vote for the WikiParty. It's what you say it is!" |
|
| |
Wouldn't you say the Bakery fits this definition? Baked I say! go fish |
|
| |