Changes

'''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 In a 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 all citizens are considered as equal members in Contemporary Political Philosophysociety, 342.</ref>. The public deliberate on common concerns<ref>Habermas 1989:xi</ref>. '''Inclusive and with equal''': According rights to Habermas, Deliberation is Inclusive, which means, every citizen, no matter what his qualities should be able to participate on equal terms, without discrimination due to economic, education or other causes: Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the take part in public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the otherdecision making. Their voting is equal, and the knowledge should be engaged in a mannar To ensure that will let every participant effectivly understand the subject all citizens could take part in hand<ref>Dahldecision making, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref>.  '''Openess''':The participants must keep open the possibility scholars of changing deliberative democracy suggested several values to deliberators should follow in their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004)deliberative process. Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3[[Values of deliberative-7democracy|Read more.</ref>. '''Political capbilities''':The public develop political competence (Cohen). The public control the process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl). '''Learning from exprience''':The government follows the public decision, the actions and the results are transparent, and the public can learn and improve future decisions (Cohen).]]