Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [EM] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet AT lavabit.com>]

On 03/18/2013 03:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 05:29 PM 3/17/2013, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

> > Given that there has been zero experience with the use of liquid
> > democracy for the exercise of power, yes, I am asserting something on
> > which there is zero experience. There's zero experience either way.
>
> I'm not proposing "liquid democracy" for the actual exercise of power,
> precisely because it's untested.

Alright, I think there's been some confusion here. Let's clear it up.

Since I was talking about this in the connection of the primary 
mentioned by Allan in the parliamentary compromising thread, I was 
thinking of liquid democracy in the sense of a continuous election for 
the purpose of exercise of power.

If you're arguing that my objections do not hold when liquid democracy 
is used in an advisory setting, then we're talking past each other; and 
then I should repeat that I agree with your suggestions of what to do. 
Let's use liquid democracy to produce advice. Let's see what happens, 
and gain experience.

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that even though there has been no 
experience in the use of liquid democracy for the exercise of power, my 
objections to it are inapplicable for logical reasons, then I can 
explain and elaborate on my reply.

So, before we continue, are we talking about liquid democracy for the 
exercise of power or as a deliberative and advisory system?

I say again that I don't object to liquid democracy or delegable proxy 
for advisory purposes. I was talking about liquid democracy used to 
exercise power. If my phrasing, "Regarding liquid democracy methods in 
general" was the source of this confusion, then may that clear it up.