3,078
edits
Changes
→Values of Deliberation
'''Free and falsifiable knowledge''': Decisions should be based upon corroborated knowledge, which is knowledge that was tested and verified by the public<ref>Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics). Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449</ref><ref>Popper, Karl Sir. The open society and its enemies. Routledge, 2012.</ref><ref>Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. Habermas (1998f), 183–214.</ref>. All public knowledge is transparant and is ready for public analysis and [[inclusiv information|understanding]]<ref>[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN006507.pdf Dror, Yebezkel. "Transparency and openness of quality democracy." Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (1999): 25-43.]</ref>. The public enjoy free public sphere to deliberate <ref>Habermas, Jürgen. "The public sphere: An encyclopedia article." Media and cultural studies (2001): 73.</ref>. Deliberation is free. No other force other than reason can be used<ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.</ref>. The public deliberate on common concerns<ref>Habermas 1989:xi</ref>.
'''Inclusive and equal''': According to Habermas, Deliberation is Inclusive (Habermas), which means, every citizen, no mater matter what his qualeties qualities should be able to participate n on equal terms , without discrimination due to economic, education or other causes. Effective participation: Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. Their voting is equal, and the knowledge should be engaged in a mannar that will let every participant effectivly understand the subject in hand<ref>Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref>.
'''Openess''':The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.</ref>.