[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00806: Re: [WDDM] Unequal voting rights? - Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:36:40 +0100
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Unequal voting rights? - Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

Dear Mirek, and Pras,

"The more community contributions someone [is recognized by the
community mass that this someone] has generated ..." the more this
someone is entrusted by the same community to be a relevant fellow
and thus this someone becomes an opinion-maker.

If so, if I were an opinion-maker, I would spend my time to give the
voters' mass my opinions wanting to get 'hem into deciding -- voting
according with my wish. Accordingly, I would become the owner of
as many votes as many opinion-receivers I had recruited.

Therefore we are not all equals in front of the voting system... as far
as the mass are inclined to be indoctrinated by the opinion-makers elite.

Therefore, any able-to-be-indoctrinated mass cannot be democracy,
just because votes are not all equals down there.


Ciao

antonio




At 22:43 -0800 20-11-2006, M. Kolar wrote:
Pras Anand wrote (November 15, 2006)
The more community contributions someone has generated - the more
right they gain on votin on increasingly complex issues. I am
developing a

Even after all his explanations, I still do not like at all the
above principle, that Pras wants to build into his Social Computer
(SC) platform. Pras believes that his SC has the potential to have a
big societal impact, so I think we all have here a good opportunity
to matter somewhat - to try to influence the principles built into
the SC. It would be interesting to know what others think
specifically about the above point.

I do not like at all the idea of giving as a reward more voting
rights to those who make more community contributions. I am not
against rewarding people in some reasonable way for their larger
contributions, but not by giving them more voting rights, especially
not in a vote on what they propose.
It is true that people are not equal, but they should have equal
opportunities in everything. That means also in voting, everybody
should have an equal voice in matters that directly concern her or
him.
It doesn't matter whose brilliant idea they are voting on. If the
consequences of implementing this idea affect them, they should have
an equal voting right on this idea.

Unless the SC adheres to this principle, it cannot be democratic.

If people (children) are educated toward democracy and social
responsibility, their greatest reward for coming up with a brilliant
idea that helps the whole community could be the feeling that they
made a significant contribution and the gratitude of others.
If SC is supposed to educate people toward democracy, it should
strengthen this alternative reward system.
I do not think it is responsible to stress competition in SC. It
should better stress cooperation.

I suggest (again), that the WDDM may be somewhat useful (even
without a formal organization) if we try to arrive by consent at
common positions on various relevant issues and post them on the
site as our recommendation.

The above issue (rewards for greater contribution to the community)
could be one such issue.

Mirek


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]