by the Pirate Pary and Liquid Democracy:
From Wikipedia
The Pirate Party:
Delegative Democracy:
It's especially noticeable how it's distinct from both Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. It puts a lot of emphasis on avoiding the typical situation where political leaders promise one thing and, once elected, go on to do exactly the opposite, or not to do anything at all. And also on avoiding the problem with having to choose between parties with pre-packaged ideas; why do you have to choose between mixed bundle of niceness and unpleasantness Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow, when you could vote issue-by-issue instead? Why should democracy work with menus rather than à la carte?
Adhocracy;
Again from Wikipedia:
It might be an interesting approach to resolvingthe problem of lost purposes.
As utilitarians, I'm curious about your opinion on these suggested policies. Are they as suboptimal as the proposals of other parties, or are they better enough (if only marginally) that these novel "Pirate" parties might actually deserve an opportunity? I for one am thinking of affiliating myself, but I'd really like to think it through, rather than go through the same old "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss" routine (assuming it isn't simply "The Old Boss Is Still Boss").
From Wikipedia
The Pirate Party:
Pirate Parties support civil rights, direct democracy and participation, reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (Open content), information privacy, transparency, and freedom of information. They advocate network neutrality and universal, unrestricted access to the Internet as indispensable conditions to some of this.
Delegative Democracy:
Delegate Democracy, also known as liquid democracy, is a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in delegates, rather than representatives. This term is a generic description of either already existing or proposed popular control apparatuses.
It's especially noticeable how it's distinct from both Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. It puts a lot of emphasis on avoiding the typical situation where political leaders promise one thing and, once elected, go on to do exactly the opposite, or not to do anything at all. And also on avoiding the problem with having to choose between parties with pre-packaged ideas; why do you have to choose between mixed bundle of niceness and unpleasantness Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow, when you could vote issue-by-issue instead? Why should democracy work with menus rather than à la carte?
Adhocracy;
Again from Wikipedia:
The word is a portmanteau of the Latin ad hoc, meaning "for the purpose", and the suffix -cracy, from the ancient Greek kratein (κρατεῖν), meaning "to govern",[1] and is thus a heteroclite.
It might be an interesting approach to resolvingthe problem of lost purposes.
Robert H. Waterman, Jr. defined adhocracy as "any form of organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results".[2] For Henry Mintzberg, an adhocracy is a complex and dynamic organizational form.[3] It is different from bureaucracy; like Toffler, Mintzberg considers bureaucracy a thing of the past, and adhocracy one of the future.[1] When done well, adhocracy can be very good at problem solving and innovations[1] and thrives in a diverse environment.[3] It requires sophisticated and often automated technical systems to develop and thrive.[
As utilitarians, I'm curious about your opinion on these suggested policies. Are they as suboptimal as the proposals of other parties, or are they better enough (if only marginally) that these novel "Pirate" parties might actually deserve an opportunity? I for one am thinking of affiliating myself, but I'd really like to think it through, rather than go through the same old "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss" routine (assuming it isn't simply "The Old Boss Is Still Boss").