Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 4, 2019 19:01 UTC (Mon) by k8to (guest, #15413)
Parent article: Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

It's an interesting article. I find it largely persuasive.

I don't think Wikipedia makes a good examples of a democracy though. Maybe viewed from afar, but when you have seem the way things play out in practice, it's clearly not so much a model of a democracy, as a corrupt bureaucracy, filled with abuse, unneeded strife, cronyism, and false flags.

Then again, maybe this is closer to modern democracy than I want to believe.

Still, I think the enforced hierarchy of their system breeds many of these problems. Maybe it's worth disclaiming the specifics a bit to make your argument a little stronger.

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 4, 2019 21:11 UTC (Mon) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link] (6 responses)

I had the same feeling. The author mentions the dictatorship -> anarchy -> democracy process, missing the final link in the process, which is democracy -> oligarchy. That's what Wikipedia is, and what every government that calls itself "democratic" is, and is the inevitable consequence of the majority of people not caring about governance (and why should they).

Wikipedia's own pledge drives note that fewer than 1% of its users donate. Meanwhile, the sprawling extent of MetaWiki is a testament to how much bureaucracy is involved in Wikipedia community participation. Any non-trivial edit that you make is liable to be pounced on by a cabal of self-important rules-lawyers. The governance structure is full of so much bikeshedding and cronyism that the barrier to participate, rather than just consume the information, is insurmountable to most people. This is much like the real world: unless you are a 'career politician,' it is impossible to effect meaningful change.

The only exceptions I can think of are communities that are small enough that the entire community participates in governance, for example a small makerspace, church, hiking group, etc. From the online communities perspective, this is similar to the 'create your own server for you and your friends' model. I agree that it is not ideal, for all the reasons mentioned in the article. But real-world so-called democracies aren't ideal either, and neither is Wikipedia, so I don't agree that those are good models to emulate.

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 5, 2019 5:06 UTC (Tue) by alyssa (guest, #130775) [Link] (3 responses)

(Author) I'm personally still grappling with this issue, both from an online community perspective as well as in real life politics.

I understand the issues with so-called democracies. Hailing from a Western democracy, I have inherited the cultural belief (naivete?) that the system is ~okay. As I see it, every political model conceivable is flawed, perhaps reflecting an underlying flawed human nature. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that the system known as democracy - and I concede the reality strays from the philosophical ideal - is the best option, broken as it may be.

Even oligarchy pretending to be democracy can be de facto better than alternatives, repugnant as it is. I am well-aware of the disenfranchisement of the Western citizen, but overall, life is freer here than elsewhere. Digitally, I hope we can inherit this benefit, even if we are full-aware the pristine philosophy of the matter may be doomed from day #1.

(I sought to address this in the paragraph beginning "Granted, information democracy is not a perfect system...". I apologise for downplaying the objection in pursuit of a shred of hope, at the expense of the reasons you lay out.)

Thank you for the food for thought.

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 6, 2019 0:32 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

As far as I'm aware, about the only country in the world that even approaches a true democracy is Switzerland.

Most countries that like to call themselves "democracies" are actually nothing of the sort, they are "representative governments" - we call ourselves a "parliamentary democracy" but, seeing as we vote representatives into parliament who then mostly vote as their party leaders tell them to, that's hardly democratic *or* representative. And for the majority of the electorate there is little real choice in our vote anyway, which is why so many people don't bother!

The problem, of course, is that as the number of people that are truly enfranchised goes up, so does the potential for rigging the system, or even just for people who don't actually have a clue mucking the system up. One only has to look at the chaos surrounding Brexit to see the havoc that a true democracy can generate ...

Cheers,
Wol

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 19, 2019 10:22 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Most countries that like to call themselves "democracies" are actually nothing of the sort, they are "representative governments" - we call ourselves a "parliamentary democracy" but, seeing as we vote representatives into parliament who then mostly vote as their party leaders tell them to, that's hardly democratic *or* representative.

Well, this is what you get when things are going as planned, or when it is clear that whatever happens things will mostly still kinda work, or when there is one obvious answer and everyone agrees (e.g. often in wartime, but also most of the time in peacetime too). We are observing at present in the UK what happens when that machinery breaks down because the people in power are inflexible or manipulable enough that they are listening to only small interest groups who are trying to drive everything off a cliff for their own reasons (Rees-Mogg has personally made £7m from Brexit so far: why's he in favour of it? I can't imagine: he doesn't care if it hurts the mostly poor people he represents, since he thinks they're *meant* to be poor and he's their manor lord, yes, seriously). What's happening? Suddenly Parliament has grown teeth and is biting back, and oh look even though rarely used those teeth do in fact appear to be quite sharp still.

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 7, 2019 2:30 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> overall, life is freer here than elsewhere.
Maybe I'm just part of those disenfranchised westerns, but wouldn't a cow think (rightly) that life at the farm is "overall, safer than elsewere"?

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 5, 2019 11:19 UTC (Tue) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link] (1 responses)

(May I offer the following disruptive thought? Make people represent their community in a manner like jury service. At some point you'll be called up, paid reasonably for your time and made responsible for the impact of your choices on your people.)

K3n.

Rosenzweig: The federation fallacy

Posted Mar 10, 2019 15:23 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> paid reasonably for your time

Sounds like you've never served on a jury ...

Neither have I but everyone I've talked to has said it leaves you rather badly out-of-pocket, as you're paid a miserly daily allowance, plus expenses, which is usually worth far less than the (usually) unpaid leave you're forced to take.

Oh - and over here, getting out of jury service is doable but not easy. Unlike the American system where you just get yourself challenged and thrown off, here it's more like "who's the next twelve? In you go ..." and it's *HARD* for either defence or prosecution to get you thrown off - they need good grounds. If you're lucky, you get a trial that lasts a few days. If you're unlucky, it lasts a few months!

Cheers,
Wol