Re: <nettime> No evidence of digital wrong-doing...

["André Rebentisch" <tabesin@gmail.com>]

Whenever you have a deliberative assembly the outcome it predefined by
the process. A sausage machine may grant you a right to select meat but
the outcome is always sausage, regardless of your selection. Or you get
something like a social democratic committee paper, where each sentence
has to be vague and is agreed upon by all, or has been previously agreed
upon, thus the outcome is mostly baseless or manipulative, e.g. by
shifting a principle on one level (all persons should be equal/free) to
another level (all net traffic should be equal/all men should be free to
shoot their machine guns) etc.

Deliberative committees are paper interventions against rocks that are
ultimately serving the ones governing the process. Indeed, your process,
dear representative tokens, produced a nice agenda plan, but we are the
officials and we pick what we want. A deliberative assembly has never
the power to command the execution of their consented plan but still
expects all participants to take ownership of the mediocre result.

What works however well is disjunct scenario planning, e.g. with four
scenarios. Then we usually get four "radical" plans. None of them would
be executed in a pure form either but we avoid the consent without power
and keep the tension, we develop the disjunct ideas to a more
sophisticated level.

Just as an example:
- Hard Brexit on WTO rules. Ordered custom Brexit. Brexit reversal.
Norway/EFTA.
- Hardborder, Soft border, Irish Union, NI stays in the EU.
Wouldn't it be great to have detailed plans for all scenarios?

Am 28.01.19 um 21:53 schrieb Brian Holmes:
> So the question is: What kinds of social forms can be used to re-mediate
> the formation of public opinion? In the recent past we tried forums, not
> just online ones, but big online/offline experiments like the global
> social forum process. These actually gave tremendous results for the
> relatively small number of people who plugged into them, and that's why
> we're still able to carry on significant discussions here and in many
> other places. But all those micropolitical fora have been too small and
> too disconnected from decision-making power. In the present,
> nation-states and supra-national formations are threatened with
> political breakdown, leaving no replacement strategies except
> authoritarianism or Hobbesian civil war. Televised, streaming and
> web-archived Citizens Assemblies sound like a great option under these
> circumstances.
> 
> OK, the keep-hope-alive department is signing off for the moment,
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
> 

-- 
André Rebentisch                Dipl. Kfm. & M.A.
Reuterstr. 32                   12047 Berlin                 Germany
Fon:   +49 30 44 35 78 96       Fax: +49 72 15 09 66 37 69
Cell:  +49 16 36 99 23 09       Tw:  @agonarch
eMail: ar@opentechsummit.net    Web: http://www.opentechsummit.net
GPG: 0398FC7B // D9DF D3EB 2E79 9B93 2F31 07EE 15E7 9B66 0398 FC7B
Tax ID (Germany): 81 240 539 731
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: