Posts by Rob Stowell
-
This article - the end of buzzfeed news, descent of the big platforms - makes one wonder if PA and places like this might be the future (again) :)
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/buzzfeed-blue-check-marks-and-the-end-of-an-internet-era -
AI spam is going to be a real menace. And AI hackers will work all night and day :(
-
Its also arguable that the ability to vote in several local body elections gives an unequal weighting to some (wealthy) voters preferences. YMMV.
There are plenty of gnarly issues in the models of co governance we've seen.
If marriage doesnt work as a metaphor, perhaps see it as a 50:50 vote in a boardroom. The point about control I was fumbling towards is that equality shouldnt give control to either party. A 50:50 split means both parties have to agree, which tends to mean compromise where there is conflict - or stasis.
Is this a good system? In terms of 3 waters, I think it's worth trying. But it would be good to have a backup plan if it does tend to stasis.
We tend to think democracy is 'finished'. Established, unchangable. But there are always experiments and improvements possible. -
We need to know just what we’re getting, what we’re giving up, what we can do to change things that might not work, and why we’re opting for - or against – co-governance.
Its ironic you mention everyone getting an equal vote; the debate around 3 waters involves local government and in NZ currently people who own multiple properties can vote more than once. So here at some stage we’ve chosen to elevate another principle – something like the old “no taxation without representation” – over the principle of “one person one vote.” Both principles seem reasonable, but here they clash.
As someone who is “co-governance curious” but sees many gnarly questions and is not yet convinced, I’d just like a debate that isnt all accusations of racism, dog whistles, and metaphors of violence.
Too much to ask? Gotta say: PASystem was where Id have looked. I miss this place! -
My own opinions can be plenty childlike. Just saying NZ needs to have a sensible thoughtful conversation about co governance.
And maybe Im not being clear enough. The marriage analogy is simple: in an equal partnership NEITHER party can be said to be in control. Control is shared. Neither party can over rule the other. There are many reasonable arguments for and against what is proposed- practical and principled reasons. But we dont get to have that conversation by misrepresenting the notion in the first place. -
Control is emotive here because its wrong. 'Aristocrats' is pretty emotive too, but likening this to sexual violence really takes the cake.
This obviously touches a nerve for you. Be good to have a grown up debate on co-governance one day tho. -
"Control" in a partnership is an emotive word. In a marriage-type relationship, at least in ideal terms, would we say one or other partner has "control"? Or would we rather think of it as a joint venture? This is something Aotearoa needs to talk out, and fair to say we are not there yet!
-
You can call it that, but you'd be giving the word your own meaning. Governance is not ownership.
-
I'd love to see such a campaign. Quite possible that it would fail, seen as Labour/Green manipulation and campiagned against by a resurgent National/Act. Still the debate is worth having. And it might spark debate about what else we can more or less agree should be entrenched.
-
It’s been a year for the history books, eh? Hoping your mum is ok and things settle down, for all of us personally and collectively. Lots of bad, but one or two good things from 2020 too. NZ publications crawling out of the hole, the dark leveraged shadow of international hedge funds is definitely hopeful.
I miss this “place” a lot. The very best net life. Arohanui PA whanau.