Tom Linton

Someone is shy

Tom hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Tom Linton
Posted 5 months ago
What is the basic building block needed to form an e-democratic platform?
Hi Patrick, Struggling a bit to take on board all the new terminology here (as well as remember the way the system is working between emails)! On the state question I think there's a very real difference between the state and utilities. The state has a monopoly of violence, sovereignty, etc. These are really crucial, in my view. Am I right in thinking that a lot of what you're thinking about is directed to stopping people charging more than they should (or being charged more than they should) in transactions? How does the society of abundance that you mention get provided? By who? Many or all of the problems of the world you mention as fixable at your page seem to rely on this society of abundance. Is a society of abundance necessarily compatible with environmental sustainability? Does the Registry do anything to solve social sustainability issues? (e.g. modern-day slavery, working conditions etc etc). Isn't time taken to produce a utility already part of our complicated demand/supply system? Don't we want flexibility in this system not rigidity? e.g. if two types of what come to market in a US supermarket, don't we want the one that was made more quickly to do better? As you can see I don't understand your system that well. I think for more discussion we should Skype it. Otherwise abandon as this type of messaging is too proving too complicated. Best, Tom
Noface
Tom Linton
Posted 5 months ago
What is the basic building block needed to form an e-democratic platform?
Doesn't the fact of being able to participate in a market where S (supply) is very small (e.g. because many qualifications are needed) amount to 'winning the game'? In terms of the state apparatus - it's an issue for a university lecture series really but how about something like 'those institutions exercising the political authority that is delegated through elections'? That would include Parliament, government, civil service etc. I think I'm only concerned if your system creates more rules but I think you're saying it doesn't. Of course, my actual preference is to have less state-enforced rules in the traditional sense.
Noface
Tom Linton
Posted 5 months ago
What is the basic building block needed to form an e-democratic platform?
Hi Patrick, Thanks for this. I used to be fairly active on metagovernment - there certainly are lots of alternatives there. What I'm looking for here is thoughts on a specific issue about how to design e-democracy. Maybe similar debates are happening on metagovernment - think maybe it's more a gathering place for projects than place for discussions on issues coming up? Thanks for the link to your idea. I don't think I've understood how it is that your system will encourage people to work hard and efficiently? Also, who's going to enforce the rules? It seems perhaps dependent on a heavy state apparatus (though maybe I've missed how you plan to deal with that).
Noface
Tom Linton
Posted 5 months ago
What is the basic building block needed to form an e-democratic platform?
I'm not clear on how the facebook/twitter-style interface that you mention would work? As I see it one of the most important functions of e-democracy is to enable crowdsourcing of all the policy ideas out there in society that currently go untapped. But what I don't understand is how public officials are supposed to have the time to read many, many contributions from people on any given topic? The whole process seems fraught with inefficiency. It's also not clear to me that such tools foster the development of sophisticated viewpoints. Displaying bills and legislation is certainly something I'm in favour of. But the wiki you mention seems to me to have the same problem in relation to comments as for the facebook/twitter tool above, unless you see it operating as a wiki rather than space for comments. If that's the case, though, then how are you planning on resolving editing conflicts? Wikipedia has sophisticated mechanisms in place for that but they are notably undemocratic (e.g. reliance on published material). The problem as I see it is basically - how to effectively combine multiple viewpoints in a way that is very scalable, as e-democracy would require? I have set out the two options I am aware of. How do you envisage dealing with these issues? I agree that it will be very interesting to hear the views of any computer programmers here but I'm also interested in other people's views - I think the issue is not just a programming one. In terms of who's paying for it I agree that's a very interesting topic but perhaps worth a separate conversation!