Difference between revisions of "Why do we need deliberative democracy"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Working Together - Leadership) |
(→How To Cooprate - Leadership) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Groups can use their member's diverse specialties and joint forces to achieve better ROI and greater projects | Groups can use their member's diverse specialties and joint forces to achieve better ROI and greater projects | ||
| − | ==How To Cooprate | + | ==How To Cooprate== |
| − | Due to [[problems of coordination]], it is difficult for all members of the group to take part in the group process of decision making. Correspondingly, after the group arrived at decisions, there should be some way to make the group follow decisions and accomplish | + | ===Leadership=== |
| + | |||
| + | Due to [[problems of coordination]], it is difficult for all members of the group to take part in the group process of decision making. Correspondingly, after the group arrived at decisions, there should be some way to make the group follow decisions and accomplish the tasks and projects. For this purpose, groups found that the easiest way to organize a group is to select smaller group of leaders, which is generally lead by a single leader. | ||
The leader should be the one which is the most wise, to get the best decisions and the best motivator to get the group follow decisions. Yet groups found it is very hard to find such leaders. Leaders learned how to secure their power without the need for the constant consent of the people. Sometimes they are not the wisest, but the more swindler manipulative figures who know who to manipulate information and people to their own needs. (See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem Principal–agent problem]). | The leader should be the one which is the most wise, to get the best decisions and the best motivator to get the group follow decisions. Yet groups found it is very hard to find such leaders. Leaders learned how to secure their power without the need for the constant consent of the people. Sometimes they are not the wisest, but the more swindler manipulative figures who know who to manipulate information and people to their own needs. (See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem Principal–agent problem]). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===The Greater Good Problem=== | ||
| + | To elevate group over all goods, Some of the actions or devision of investment and resources may not be distrebuted equaly. In some cases some members will gain more then others. In some cases, some will have to suffer or even parish. The question is how to make such decisions, which will make the group prosper in the long run, and how not make some that endure the burden of the group disert the group (see Rawls). | ||
| + | |||
| + | This bring forward the problems of the majorty rule and minurity rule. | ||
| + | ===Private Sphare=== | ||
| + | Although members who join the group are abliget to the unreaten social contracts of their societis (see rosu), it is a question to be answerd, how much private life a member can have and where is the bundries the between the influance of socity and the private sphare (See Mill). | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 07:40, 11 March 2015
Contents
The needs for cooperation
The tragedy of the commons
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource[1].
Cummon Force
Groups can be more powerful then individuals, and therefore can force individuals to subject to their will, and force them to give up resources. Therefore powerful groups have an advantage in attaining resources over individuals, and keeping their members from harm.
Cummon Act
Groups can use their member's diverse specialties and joint forces to achieve better ROI and greater projects
How To Cooprate
Leadership
Due to problems of coordination, it is difficult for all members of the group to take part in the group process of decision making. Correspondingly, after the group arrived at decisions, there should be some way to make the group follow decisions and accomplish the tasks and projects. For this purpose, groups found that the easiest way to organize a group is to select smaller group of leaders, which is generally lead by a single leader.
The leader should be the one which is the most wise, to get the best decisions and the best motivator to get the group follow decisions. Yet groups found it is very hard to find such leaders. Leaders learned how to secure their power without the need for the constant consent of the people. Sometimes they are not the wisest, but the more swindler manipulative figures who know who to manipulate information and people to their own needs. (See the Principal–agent problem).
The Greater Good Problem
To elevate group over all goods, Some of the actions or devision of investment and resources may not be distrebuted equaly. In some cases some members will gain more then others. In some cases, some will have to suffer or even parish. The question is how to make such decisions, which will make the group prosper in the long run, and how not make some that endure the burden of the group disert the group (see Rawls).
This bring forward the problems of the majorty rule and minurity rule.
Private Sphare
Although members who join the group are abliget to the unreaten social contracts of their societis (see rosu), it is a question to be answerd, how much private life a member can have and where is the bundries the between the influance of socity and the private sphare (See Mill).