Message from @Blebleh
Discord ID: 315993542197641216
anarchists unions try to discuss in assemblies and get into a consensus, convince who doesn't agree with them
What a waste of time.
this could take more time yes
but after it we don't have to do again the law
change the government, etc.
because we already agreed and learned from it
in other cases, there could be supermajorities
Assuming you made the correct discussion, which you cannot know because you care more about consensus than authoritative truths.
and in irreconciliable cases factions
no
scientifical truths doesn't depend on democracy
this is built on the platform in a pre-revolutionary phase
but after it, what people don't know if it's truth or not; what we have to agree
What kind of truth is not scientific?
this is other thing
in politics?
it depends a lot on the environment and the circumstances
we don't have laboratory conditions
I should rephrase, what kind of decision making should not be guided by science?
there could be some zones in the territory that would prefer to pay for having this thing or another one
I agree it should be guided by science when possible
So you are saying, if we are 100% ignorant, which is not the case, but if we were, we should use consensus, but then once we have science why not abandon consensus in favour of science?
I agree when it's 1+1=2
What if others do not agree?
What if they are the majority?
then people has done such a bad educational work
and maybe the judges, the minority, are judging in a bad way and are pseudoscientific thinking that they're scientists
they already were educated
and thinking that only a minority has scientifical reason in this is an imposition
I never said, only the minority have scientific reason, I said that the best minds should have authority.
You are assuming an unprecedented scenario, where every person is a genius of equal intellect.
Let's say that people can do basic math
if it's too advanced, the best minds could explain it to the people
in a way they can decide
politics has values
Assuming this were possible, why bother if the outcome will be the same because there is only 1 correct answer, objectively.
Sure, educate people to the best of our ability, but do not, yet, rely on them to make the correct decision.
because if for some reason the delegate isn't doing what we agreed, we can overthrow that person violently or legally
it avoids "revisionism"