Re: What is consensus?

[juan]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:46:29 -0500
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/12/2017 07:02 AM, juan wrote:
> 
> > I wanted to comment on the quaker thing as well. The
> > word consensus is  derived from and requires consent.
> > Theocracy or religious fraud, especially of the jew-kkkristian
> > variety has fuck to do with consent. By definition fraud destroys
> > consent. 
> > 
> > By the way, jew-kristian theocracy is the very opposite of
> > anarchism and cypherpunkry since its anti-philosophical
> > root is an all knowing all seeing tyrant.
> 
> Back in the day Friends were one of many radical social movements that
> appeared in response to the early development of the Industrial Age
> and the first appearance of a "middle class."  


I think quakers were involved in the allegedly/so called 
libertarian movement('classical liberalism'). Some examples
would be john bright (anti corn laws), thomas paine  and herbert
spencer. These last two 'dissenters' influenced by quaker
parents. I think paine says in "age of reason" that quakers
were closest to deism. 

Also I got this bit about quakers from this author
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_(Radical)


"The Pharisees were a set of self-righteous and sanctimonious
hypo- crites, ready to play into and keep up any religious
farce that might serve to invest them with an imaginary
sanctity of character, and increase their influence over the
minds of the majority, whose good nature and ignorance in all
ages and countries, is but ever too ready to subscribe the
claims thus made upon it. 

They were the Quakers of their day, a set of commercial,
speculating thieves, who expressed their religion in the
eccentricity of their garb ; and, under professions of
extraordinary punctiliousness and humanity, were the most
over-reaching, oppressive, and inexorable of the human race. "

another passage 

"This is an early specimen of primitive Quakerism, the policy
of a sect of the most arrogant, most ignorant, fraudulent,
intolerant, and inexorable men that ever adorned the gospel and
disgraced humanity. In every thing the diametrical reverse o£
their professions." 


diegesis : https://archive.org/download/diegesis00unkngoog

looks like he didn't like them too much




> These movements were
> shaped in large part by the rapid spread of literacy and availability
> of books, including bibles which common people could read and
> interpret for themselves for the first time.  The Partition Act and
> other radical social/economic changes in England and Europe during
> the 1600s turned the world upside down - the origin of the word
> "revolution" - and the stage was set for interesting times.
> 
> The Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, and many other factions are long
> gone, but the Mennonites, Amish, Unitarians and Quakers remain with
> us today. One thing all these movements had in common was their
> rejection of Church and State authority, in preference for what would
> today be called "human rights" and religious freedom.  All met and
> most survived violent persecution by State authorities.


I'd point out that being persecuted by state authorities
doesn't automatically make the victims anti-state free-thinkers.
Christian sects persecuting one another isn't exactly news. 

Puritans were persecuted in england and in turn hanged quakers
in amerika it seems.

...So I got somewhat sidetracked and realized that in the land
of the free, the english-american government used to hunt and
hang witches in ~1700 - salem trials but I suspect there must
be more...

so quakers weren't necessarily being singled out - they were
just subjected to standard anglo-american civilization, like
witches.


> 
> Early Friends called the Roman and Post-Roman churches the apostasy,
> in reference to their self evident abandonment of the Christian
> teachings of their own Bible in favor of collusion with State
> authority and the financial interests of "hireling ministers."  Along
> with the other groups mentioned above, Friends were religiously
> motivated anarchists owing no spiritual /or/ material allegiance to
> any established institution.  These groups developed institutions of
> their own, some more anarchistic than others but all grounded in
> radical egalitarianism, voluntary membership, and adherence to
> community standards developed by the communities themselves.
> 
> In England the Friends existed in substantial numbers, and caused so
> much trouble that William Penn, advocating on their behalf, was able
> to obtain a Crown Charter for a colony in the New World expressly as a
> dumping ground for English Quakers. 

Re: quakers - Re: What is consensus?

[Steve Kinney]

On 12/12/2017 08:40 PM, juan wrote:
> 
> 
>   got a few more comments about quakers but Ill start with this 
> 
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs
> 
>   "in 1874 the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade was
>   formed in England by Quakers led by the Rev. Frederick
>   Storrs-Turner." 
> 
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Suppression_of_the_Opium_Trade

Early Friends were opposed to recreational drugs of any kind.  But in
modern times, I have attended "meeting for drinking with a concern for
business" and nobody noticed it was funny until I pointed that out.  Ya
see, the local Meeting's outreach committee reserved a table for a
meeting at a restaurant, but the table was not ready when we showed up
so we were seated at the bar.  Lucky me, they had Rolling Rock in stock.

Friends have always had their say on social and political issues.
George Fox sailed to the West Indies to preach against the evils of
slavery, and John Woolman is credited as one of the first major American
abolitionists.

Quakers, Mennonites and their ilk who refused to serve in World War II
were sent to prison with black radicals who also refused to serve
(history seems to have forgotten them), and the resulting cross
fertilization of ideas and methods help shape the later Civil Rights
movement we are told so many pretty lies about today, starting with the
one about how it succeeded and is over and done with.  Every town of any
size named a street after MLK Jr., what more do "those people" want?!

During the Vietnam War, thousands of draftees who knew the score refused
to serve and were /not/ jailed, thanks to laws lobbied for by Quakers
and etc., and help from draft counselors who themselves were mostly
Quakers.  I seem to recall that /five/ people who had assistance from
NIBSCO were successfully prosecuted as draft dodgers during that war;
the rest just sat out the war in the U.S., living their otherwise normal
lives.  I got my NIBSCO / CCW Draft Counselor training back during the
Bush II Administration, when it looked possible that the draft might get
started back up.

Richard Nixon was a "birthright Friend" but that means nothing unless
one also becomes a "convinced Friend," which he most emphatically did
not.  Joan Baez is still a Friend, although she never talks about that
in public because she doesn't want to disrupt her Meeting.

>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_%28United_States%29
> 
>   "Prohibition was supported by the dries, primarily pietistic
>   Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern
>   Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians,
>   Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and
>   Scandinavian Lutherans," 

Any time one sees Friends misidentified as "Protestant" check to see
what part of the world the "Quakers" in question came from.  If the
American Midwest (and today, sub-Saharan Africa), they are not what
George Fox would have called Friends:  Long story short, Protestants
managed to co-opt the Quaker name and some of its outward appearances
during the first big western expansion into the Ohio River Valley and
etc.  They managed this by virtue of massively outnumbering the Friends
who went west and built the first schools, which were also the first
Meeting Houses (and later, so-called Quaker "churches") in the new farm
towns on what was then the Western Frontier.

The descendants of these congregations are now called "Conservative
Friends," and yes they are Protestants - complete with hireling
ministers, programmed religious services, right-wing political
commitments, gender discrimination written into their policy docs, and
etc.  As individuals most are very nice people, I prefer their company
to any other Protestant denomination I can name.  But as an organization
it's fatally flawed, and many Yearly Meetings in the U.S. have formally
disaffiliated themselves from the "Conservative" national body, Friends
United Meeting.

Just now my own Yearly Meeting is supporting efforts to educate the
African congregations started by FUM "Protestant Quaker" missionaries,
on the actual history and religious practice of Friends.  Reports from
the field indicate very enthusiastic uptake, perhaps in large part
because the typical problems in African social politics and Protestant
social politics are a good match and potentate each other, reliably
creating worst case outcomes. What I call "real" Quaker practice
provides cognitive and organizational tools that can be applied to
attack and solve those problems... "on a good day, all else being equal."

:o)









signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

quakers - Re: What is consensus?

[juan]

got a few more comments about quakers but Ill start with this 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs

"in 1874 the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade was
formed in England by Quakers led by the Rev. Frederick
Storrs-Turner." 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Suppression_of_the_Opium_Trade



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_%28United_States%29

"Prohibition was supported by the dries, primarily pietistic
Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern
Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians,
Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and
Scandinavian Lutherans," 

Re: What is consensus?

[Mirimir]

On 12/11/2017 08:10 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/10/2017 01:06 PM, g2s wrote:
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com>
>> Date: 12/10/17 8:02 AM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
>> Subject: Re: What is consensus?
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:
>>> Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to
>> (hopefully) reach it.
>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
>>
>>
>> lol
>> "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon
>>
>> Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.
>>
>> I was NOT making an argument that voting works to change anything
>> systematic in media driven indoctrinated societies. I was simply
>> defining the word... further consensus Agreement doesn't always work
>> either, but if the "block" is honored it slows down the process and has
>> potential for correcting mistakes that may be harder to repair after the
>> fact.
> 
> Re "What is consensus?" Mirmir replied "Ask any Quaker."
> 
> That's me, and I am now required (dammit) to give a straight answer
> because I'm a Friend in good standing, a "made guy" so to speak.

Thanks, Steve :)

> The quote from Georgi above seems to be part of the original thread so
> at least there's a context to answer the question in.
> 
> Consensus means agreement.  And that means a messy, organic, all too
> human hairball at work.  The Quakers are often accused of governing
> themselves by consensus, and have been so accused for something
> approaching 400 years.  Here's how we do it, more or less.
> 
> Disclaimer:
> 
> The following is not the "rules of RSOF engagement," so much as my own
> observation of Friends' process, developed from 20+ years of full
> participation, including lots of committee work for my monthly and
> yearly Meetings.  I do push the Gospel of Truth in the manner of
> Friends, promoting the religious practice that makes Friends "a peculiar
> people" - which, back in the day, meant a "distinct" group.
> 
> In practical application among Friends, consensus arises from local
> communities, small enough that everyone is at most at one remove in
> acquaintance from one another.  Friends participate, first and foremost,
> in an agreement among themselves to work together in compliance with a
> specified process for decision making.
> 
> When geographically dispersed Friends participate in regionally
> sponsored projects (and we do, non-stop), representatives selected by
> participating Meetings form committees; these committees execute the
> same consensus procedure to arrive at their recommendations to the
> regional body as a whole.  No decision on matters of faith and practice
> or Meeting business becomes "binding" without advice and approval from
> Meeting as a whole.
> 
> Quakers don't do "consensus" as that word is understood in a secular
> context.  We make decisions based on "a sense of the Meeting," and we
> call the process for that discernment.  Any Friend who has had Quakerism
> 101 understands that we are discerning the will of God, most properly so
> in silence broken only by vocal ministry as so led; having found that,
> the next step is to seek "way forward" toward compliance with our orders
> from the head office.
> 
> Friends do present a peculiar position on God, this time in the modern
> sense of the word peculiar.  Weighty Friends (made gals and guise who
> may speak rarely but do command attention, for reasons) have long
> agreed:  Nobody can define or describe God.  But whatever that word
> stands for, we know it when we see it in motion, and accept that once
> set on a path by that force, one must do /something/ regardless of
> personal preferences or interests.
> 
> "Friends don't vote," but we do discriminate:  Membership in our Society
> is accomplished by a consensus between oneself and the local Meeting's
> membership at large - there's a formal process for that, and new or
> transferred members are recorded or "minuted" as such by the clerk of
> their Meeting.  Roles such as Clerk of Meeting, Trustees, etc. will
> nearly always be filled by members of Meeting, as will committees that
> engage in pastoral counseling where confidentiality issues may arise.
> All other committees are wide open for any member or attender to sit in
> on.
> 
> Friends normally meet weekly for meeting for worship, and monthly for
> "meeting for worship with a concern 

Re: What is consensus?

[Steve Kinney]

On 12/12/2017 07:02 AM, juan wrote:

>   I wanted to comment on the quaker thing as well. The
>   word consensus is  derived from and requires consent. Theocracy
>   or religious fraud, especially of the jew-kkkristian variety
>   has fuck to do with consent. By definition fraud destroys
>   consent. 
> 
>   By the way, jew-kristian theocracy is the very opposite of
>   anarchism and cypherpunkry since its anti-philosophical
>   root is an all knowing all seeing tyrant.

Back in the day Friends were one of many radical social movements that
appeared in response to the early development of the Industrial Age and
the first appearance of a "middle class."  These movements were shaped
in large part by the rapid spread of literacy and availability of books,
including bibles which common people could read and interpret for
themselves for the first time.  The Partition Act and other radical
social/economic changes in England and Europe during the 1600s turned
the world upside down - the origin of the word "revolution" - and the
stage was set for interesting times.

The Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, and many other factions are long gone,
but the Mennonites, Amish, Unitarians and Quakers remain with us today.
One thing all these movements had in common was their rejection of
Church and State authority, in preference for what would today be called
"human rights" and religious freedom.  All met and most survived violent
persecution by State authorities.

Early Friends called the Roman and Post-Roman churches the apostasy, in
reference to their self evident abandonment of the Christian teachings
of their own Bible in favor of collusion with State authority and the
financial interests of "hireling ministers."  Along with the other
groups mentioned above, Friends were religiously motivated anarchists
owing no spiritual /or/ material allegiance to any established
institution.  These groups developed institutions of their own, some
more anarchistic than others but all grounded in radical egalitarianism,
voluntary membership, and adherence to community standards developed by
the communities themselves.

In England the Friends existed in substantial numbers, and caused so
much trouble that William Penn, advocating on their behalf, was able to
obtain a Crown Charter for a colony in the New World expressly as a
dumping ground for English Quakers.  More than enough were eager to get
out from under Crown authority to quickly populate Pennsylvania with
Friends.

The Quakers considered the Native Americans as human as themselves, and
saw a clear reflection of their own methods of self-governance in the
tribal councils and federations process.  The Friends paid for the land
they took and engaged in normal commerce with the locals.  As a result,
Friends came to be known as "the honest white men" and still enjoy a
unique reputation among native communities.

Friends were among the earliest and most stubborn of pacifist
organizations, refusing to bear arms.  They also openly refused to use
the language and mannerisms of master and servant, hard wired into
English culture, and for this many were jailed, tortured and/or killed.
Their adamant rejection of merely human authority, in preference for
local self rule on a model often /mistaken/ for consensus by outsiders,
completes the picture of the most viable anarchist movement to emerge
from the Age of Enlightenment.

It's been a long, winding road since then with plenty of forks and dead
ends.  Our numbers have collapsed, in the U.S. midwest a conventional
"protestant" sect has co-opted our Society's name, but Friends are still
here:  A pale shadow of the Society's former self, banging along on two
or three cylinders but still capable of exercising social and political
influence /far/ beyond what our numbers would suggest.

We rarely advertise and never lay a high pressure sales pitch on anyone.
 Sociologists studying religious beliefs and attitudes in the U.S. find
that conventional churches have been largely abandoned by people who
want, ironically enough, exactly what the Religious Society of Friends
has to offer... but they don't know we exist.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: What is consensus?

[Steve Kinney]

On 12/10/2017 01:06 PM, g2s wrote:
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com>
> Date: 12/10/17 8:02 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
> Subject: Re: What is consensus?
> 
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:
>> Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to
> (hopefully) reach it.
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
> 
> 
> lol
> "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon
> 
> Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.
> 
> I was NOT making an argument that voting works to change anything
> systematic in media driven indoctrinated societies. I was simply
> defining the word... further consensus Agreement doesn't always work
> either, but if the "block" is honored it slows down the process and has
> potential for correcting mistakes that may be harder to repair after the
> fact.

Re "What is consensus?" Mirmir replied "Ask any Quaker."

That's me, and I am now required (dammit) to give a straight answer
because I'm a Friend in good standing, a "made guy" so to speak.

The quote from Georgi above seems to be part of the original thread so
at least there's a context to answer the question in.

Consensus means agreement.  And that means a messy, organic, all too
human hairball at work.  The Quakers are often accused of governing
themselves by consensus, and have been so accused for something
approaching 400 years.  Here's how we do it, more or less.

Disclaimer:

The following is not the "rules of RSOF engagement," so much as my own
observation of Friends' process, developed from 20+ years of full
participation, including lots of committee work for my monthly and
yearly Meetings.  I do push the Gospel of Truth in the manner of
Friends, promoting the religious practice that makes Friends "a peculiar
people" - which, back in the day, meant a "distinct" group.

In practical application among Friends, consensus arises from local
communities, small enough that everyone is at most at one remove in
acquaintance from one another.  Friends participate, first and foremost,
in an agreement among themselves to work together in compliance with a
specified process for decision making.

When geographically dispersed Friends participate in regionally
sponsored projects (and we do, non-stop), representatives selected by
participating Meetings form committees; these committees execute the
same consensus procedure to arrive at their recommendations to the
regional body as a whole.  No decision on matters of faith and practice
or Meeting business becomes "binding" without advice and approval from
Meeting as a whole.

Quakers don't do "consensus" as that word is understood in a secular
context.  We make decisions based on "a sense of the Meeting," and we
call the process for that discernment.  Any Friend who has had Quakerism
101 understands that we are discerning the will of God, most properly so
in silence broken only by vocal ministry as so led; having found that,
the next step is to seek "way forward" toward compliance with our orders
from the head office.

Friends do present a peculiar position on God, this time in the modern
sense of the word peculiar.  Weighty Friends (made gals and guise who
may speak rarely but do command attention, for reasons) have long
agreed:  Nobody can define or describe God.  But whatever that word
stands for, we know it when we see it in motion, and accept that once
set on a path by that force, one must do /something/ regardless of
personal preferences or interests.

"Friends don't vote," but we do discriminate:  Membership in our Society
is accomplished by a consensus between oneself and the local Meeting's
membership at large - there's a formal process for that, and new or
transferred members are recorded or "minuted" as such by the clerk of
their Meeting.  Roles such as Clerk of Meeting, Trustees, etc. will
nearly always be filled by members of Meeting, as will committees that
engage in pastoral counseling where confidentiality issues may arise.
All other committees are wide open for any member or attender to sit in
on.

Friends normally meet weekly for meeting for worship, and monthly for
"meeting for worship with a concern for business," which is open to all.
   Committees report to the latter meeting on a monthly basis, but
otherwise work where and as expedient.

It can take Friends half of forever to get anything outside of
established routine done, but what we do sticks.  Conversely, when a
situation requires it Friends form and operate voluntary organizations
in near real-time.  Friends' Service Committees have crossed active
battlefields in caravans carrying relief supplies to besieged civilians

Re: What is consensus?

[g2s]

 Original message From: Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com> 
Date: 12/10/17  8:02 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: 
Re: What is consensus? 
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:
> Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach 
> it.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus


lol
"If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon

Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.

I was NOT making an argument that voting works to change anything systematic in 
media driven indoctrinated societies. I was simply defining the word... further 
consensus Agreement doesn't always work either, but if the "block" is honored 
it slows down the process and has potential for correcting mistakes that may be 
harder to repair after the fact.
Rr

Re: What is consensus?

[Sr Sandok]

Just like what happened in catalonia?



On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 at 17:03, Georgi Guninski  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:
> > Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully)
> reach it.
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
>
>
> lol
> "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon
>
> Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.
>

Re: What is consensus?

[Georgi Guninski]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:
> Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach 
> it.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus


lol
"If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon

Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.

Re: What is consensus?

[g2s]

Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach 
it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
Rr
 Original message From: Edward Low <edward...@riseup.net> Date: 
12/10/17  3:40 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: 
What is consensus? 

So there is clearly a difference between what some understand as
  consensus (voting) and others understand as consensus (everybody
  agree with no voting).
Votation should only be the last option if everybody can not
  agree on the same decission, but consensus should try to avoid
  votations as much as possible, IMHO





El 09/12/17 a las 10:15, Green Peas
  escribió:


>
Mirimir mirimir at riceup.net

> Fri Dec 8 10:37:04 PST 2017

> 



> And you're full of shit, sir ;)

> 



Yet you provide no reason.



> Ask any Quaker

> 



Your appeal to authority is logical fallacy.

Try again, good sir.

  



-- 
Edward Low
edward...@riseup.net
Libertalia (Madagascar)
  

Re: What is consensus?

[Edward Low]

So there is clearly a difference between what some understand as
consensus (voting) and others understand as consensus (everybody agree
with no voting).

Votation should only be the last option if everybody can not agree on
the same decission, but consensus should try to avoid votations as much
as possible, IMHO



El 09/12/17 a las 10:15, Green Peas escribió:
> > Mirimir mirimir at riceup.net
> > Fri Dec 8 10:37:04 PST 2017
> >
>
> > And you're full of shit, sir ;)
> >
>
> Yet you provide no reason.
>
> > Ask any Quaker
> >
>
> Your appeal to authority is logical fallacy.
> Try again, good sir.

-- 
Edward Low
edward...@riseup.net
Libertalia (Madagascar)

Re: What is consensus?

[Mirimir]

On 12/08/2017 07:27 AM, Temple OS User wrote:
>> Mirimir mirimir at wiseup.net
>> Fri Dec 8 09:04:06 PST 2017
>>
> 
>> voting is not consensus
>>
> 
> You are incorrect, sir.

And you're full of shit, sir ;)

Ask any Quaker, for example.

> Similar to 'consentire':
> 'con' - a variant of 'com' meaning 'with'
> 'sentire' - a variant of 'sēnsus' meaning 'to feel'
> 
> Literally 'with sense' or 'in agreement'.
> 
> To join in "agreement" is to express what is essentially a vote.  Hence
> the term "Vote with your wallet", which I am sure many anon here do.
> 
> Reminder:
> All art is political; everything is art.
> -anon
> 

Re: What is consensus?

[Mirimir]

On 12/07/2017 08:12 PM, Douglas Lucas wrote:
> Hi Edward,
> 
> Consensus is agreement by means of votes. It's a hierarchy where those
> who win the vote impose on those who lose the vote (although sometimes
> the dissenters just exit altogether).
> 
> One no-voting method of collaboration is stigmergy:
> https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/stigmergy-2/
> 
> See also:
> https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/a-societal-singularity/

If voting is involved, it's not consensus-based. There is checking for
consensus, as g2s noted. And there is blocking. So one person can block
consensus. However, there is social pressure to have persuasive
arguments supporting blocks. Blocking for personal reasons will make you
very unpopular. There's also the option to stand aside. It's somewhat
like abstaining from a vote, when you have a conflict of interest. But
you can also stand aside when you don't entirely agree, but don't want
to stand in the way of progress.

> On 12/07/2017 06:19 PM, g2s wrote:
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Edward Low 
>> Date: 12/7/17 5:03 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
>> Subject: What is consensus?
>>
>> There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.
>>
>> As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
>> need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
>> their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
>> Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
>> of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.
>>
>> Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
>> majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
>> to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> E. Low
>>
>> -- 
>> Edward Low
>> edward...@riseup.net
>> Libertalia (Madagascar)
>>
>> Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of
>> how it fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement,
>> the the BLOCK in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish
>> anarchist unions who were in general avreement on a goal, and a block
>> STOPPED the process until whatever issue the blockung party brought up
>> was resolved.
>>
>>
>> At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the
>> BLOCK, it was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to
>> basically mean you were voting yourself out of the process unless you
>> withdrew the block...
>>
>> Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction
>> won in spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the
>> largest factions were typically scumbag prog-libs.
>>
>> Rr
> 

Re: What is consensus?

[Douglas Lucas]

Hi Edward,

Consensus is agreement by means of votes. It's a hierarchy where those
who win the vote impose on those who lose the vote (although sometimes
the dissenters just exit altogether).

One no-voting method of collaboration is stigmergy:
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/stigmergy-2/

See also:
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/a-societal-singularity/

On 12/07/2017 06:19 PM, g2s wrote:
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Edward Low 
> Date: 12/7/17 5:03 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
> Subject: What is consensus?
> 
> There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.
> 
> As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
> need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
> their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
> Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
> of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.
> 
> Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
> majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
> to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> E. Low
> 
> -- 
> Edward Low
> edward...@riseup.net
> Libertalia (Madagascar)
> 
> Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of
> how it fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement,
> the the BLOCK in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish
> anarchist unions who were in general avreement on a goal, and a block
> STOPPED the process until whatever issue the blockung party brought up
> was resolved.
> 
> 
> At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the
> BLOCK, it was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to
> basically mean you were voting yourself out of the process unless you
> withdrew the block...
> 
> Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction
> won in spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the
> largest factions were typically scumbag prog-libs.
> 
> Rr

Re: What is consensus?

[g2s]

 Original message From: Edward Low  Date: 
12/7/17  5:03 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: What is 
consensus? 
There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.

As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.

Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?

Thanks

E. Low

-- 
Edward Low
edward...@riseup.net
Libertalia (Madagascar)

Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of how it 
fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement, the the BLOCK 
in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish anarchist unions who 
were in general avreement on a goal, and a block STOPPED the process until 
whatever issue the blockung party brought up was resolved.

At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the BLOCK, it 
was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to basically mean you 
were voting yourself out of the process unless you withdrew the block...
Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction won in 
spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the largest factions 
were typically scumbag prog-libs.
Rr