"Liquid Democracy"

[Johnny Galt]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

"This democratic system utilizes elements of both direct and representative democracy. Voters in a liquid democracy have the right to vote directly on all policy issues à la direct democracy, however, voters also have the option to delegate their votes to someone who will vote on their behalf à la representative democracy."

This is new to me. I'm curious if anyone can point to examples of where this has worked, or of how this has failed.

What are the pro's and con's to this? 

I like the idea of being able to have more control on specific policies or programs. For example, I would like to not have any of my money going towards legacy media or the educational systems. Until they do better, I'd rather they not receive any of my money. 

[vizual]

https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0

[Sucuk Ekmek]

26 minutes ago, Johnny Galt said:

For example, I would like to not have any of my money going towards legacy media or the educational systems. Until they do better, I'd rather they not receive any of my money. 

Unfortunately there is no such thing as my money. It belongs to central bank and even then it's not money it's called Fiat money.  XXX dolars means nothing there is no guarantee for anything expect incoming freshly printed brand new fresh papers(inflation). 

 

 

Here is a educational video on subject: 

Here is a damn good article on the subject: https://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFWaitingForGodot.pdf

[Johnny Galt]

@Sucuk Ekmek I hear you. 

How about we have receipts with real value and from that space, "I would like to not have any of my money going towards legacy media or the educational systems. Until they do better, I'd rather they not receive any of my money."

[Sucuk Ekmek]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Galt said:

@Sucuk Ekmek I hear you. 

How about we have receipts with real value and from that space, "I would like to not have any of my money going towards legacy media or the educational systems. Until they do better, I'd rather they not receive any of my money."

Then I would call that democracy because  now  you can actually participate in the administration with your own money. That would bring lots of power to people. If you can control your own money then this would open up new possibilities that never seen before.

[Preety_India]

You need a combination of democracy and dictatorship and meritocracy. 

Also geniocracy. 

Democracy just doesn't work. 

Democracy needs to be supplemented with positive leadership, Caesarism and some degree of populism. 

Democracy combined with kingship. 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Preety_India

[aurum]

Jim Rutt talks about it a bit:

Skip to 27:52.

It’s an interesting idea, but all good ideas can be corrupted by lower consciousness individuals. Which then creates the conditions for more lower consciousness behavior, thus solidifying the loop.

How to break the loop? That’s the million dollar question.

Really it’s the same question as how does an individual change? How does someone go from a self-reinforcing negative spiral to a positive one?

In my experience, it comes from a deeper place than the conscious mind. The conscious mind believes it to be in control, only to later recognize its own folly.

Likely we will move through a similar collective phase.

When we do, perhaps an idea like liquid democracy will make rounds. Or not. Doing the “right thing” becomes less important at that point.

[zurew]

I think with a dynamic, where you can delegate your vote to others, it can be easy to take advantage of , especially if you have a lot of money. Basically you could directly buy votes from other people with only using your money,  the most rich would have the most influence over the issues. If its done better, and if there is some way to prevent this, then it might be a good way to address things, but i don't know how it would look like in practice. Such ideas in my opinion should be tested in a smaller case, before it is used in a larger one.

[zurew]

Jim Rutt article about it:

https://medium.com/@memetic007/making-liquid-democracy-work-pay-the-delegates-bd813a9cb60a

[zurew]

On 2022. 03. 08. at 11:12 PM, nuwu said:

we might be moving toward societies where reputation systems are much more valuable than resources themselves

Can you come up with an example for this, where a reputation system would be more valuable than the resources.Doesn't have to be too specific, but vaguely how it would look like.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

On 09.03.2022 at 1:12 AM, nuwu said:

@Sucuk Ekmek  gold standard, including bitcoin's primitive tokenomics, is basically feudalism, only desired by the ego for the ability to control survival. fractional reserve has some drawbacks, but its level of decentralization is higher than previous systems, while being more efficient and resilient. it didn't took long for russian currency to drop in value, despite a constant gold reserve. we might be moving toward societies where reputation systems are much more valuable than resources themselves, since fundamentally speaking, the concept of resource ownership only makes sense when one lives in a society that protects such "link" between her and the property. i.e. tokenization of all assets will also make them easier to programmatically slash in a more or less understanding way

 

Fedualism couldn't be all bad? If so we can take it's good parts I suppose. Of course gold is  based on survival. You also own your body  and I think it's a healthy ownership.  Yes russian currency lost it's value right now but her game is also just begun. I don't think shown numbers are meaningful rightnow.

I find Socrates pray funny: 

 Give me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and the inward be at one. May I reckon the wise to be the wealthy, and may I have such a quantity of gold as a temperate person, and only a temperate person, can carry.