Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus Rr -------- Original message --------From: Edward Low <edwardlow@riseup.net> Date: 12/10/17 3:40 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: What is consensus? So there is clearly a difference between what some understand as consensus (voting) and others understand as consensus (everybody agree with no voting). Votation should only be the last option if everybody can not agree on the same decission, but consensus should try to avoid votations as much as possible, IMHO El 09/12/17 a las 10:15, Green Peas escribió: > Mirimir mirimir at riceup.net > Fri Dec 8 10:37:04 PST 2017 > > And you're full of shit, sir ;) > Yet you provide no reason. > Ask any Quaker > Your appeal to authority is logical fallacy. Try again, good sir. -- Edward Low edwardlow@riseup.net Libertalia (Madagascar)

Just like what happened in catalonia? On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 at 17:03, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:

...

Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

lol "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon

Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.

On 12/10/2017 01:06 PM, g2s wrote:

-------- Original message -------- From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> Date: 12/10/17 8:02 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: What is consensus?

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:

...

Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

lol "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon

Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.

I was NOT making an argument that voting works to change anything systematic in media driven indoctrinated societies. I was simply defining the word... further consensus Agreement doesn't always work either, but if the "block" is honored it slows down the process and has potential for correcting mistakes that may be harder to repair after the fact.

Re "What is consensus?" Mirmir replied "Ask any Quaker." That's me, and I am now required (dammit) to give a straight answer because I'm a Friend in good standing, a "made guy" so to speak. The quote from Georgi above seems to be part of the original thread so at least there's a context to answer the question in. Consensus means agreement. And that means a messy, organic, all too human hairball at work. The Quakers are often accused of governing themselves by consensus, and have been so accused for something approaching 400 years. Here's how we do it, more or less. Disclaimer: The following is not the "rules of RSOF engagement," so much as my own observation of Friends' process, developed from 20+ years of full participation, including lots of committee work for my monthly and yearly Meetings. I do push the Gospel of Truth in the manner of Friends, promoting the religious practice that makes Friends "a peculiar people" - which, back in the day, meant a "distinct" group. In practical application among Friends, consensus arises from local communities, small enough that everyone is at most at one remove in acquaintance from one another. Friends participate, first and foremost, in an agreement among themselves to work together in compliance with a specified process for decision making. When geographically dispersed Friends participate in regionally sponsored projects (and we do, non-stop), representatives selected by participating Meetings form committees; these committees execute the same consensus procedure to arrive at their recommendations to the regional body as a whole. No decision on matters of faith and practice or Meeting business becomes "binding" without advice and approval from Meeting as a whole. Quakers don't do "consensus" as that word is understood in a secular context. We make decisions based on "a sense of the Meeting," and we call the process for that discernment. Any Friend who has had Quakerism 101 understands that we are discerning the will of God, most properly so in silence broken only by vocal ministry as so led; having found that, the next step is to seek "way forward" toward compliance with our orders from the head office. Friends do present a peculiar position on God, this time in the modern sense of the word peculiar. Weighty Friends (made gals and guise who may speak rarely but do command attention, for reasons) have long agreed: Nobody can define or describe God. But whatever that word stands for, we know it when we see it in motion, and accept that once set on a path by that force, one must do /something/ regardless of personal preferences or interests. "Friends don't vote," but we do discriminate: Membership in our Society is accomplished by a consensus between oneself and the local Meeting's membership at large - there's a formal process for that, and new or transferred members are recorded or "minuted" as such by the clerk of their Meeting. Roles such as Clerk of Meeting, Trustees, etc. will nearly always be filled by members of Meeting, as will committees that engage in pastoral counseling where confidentiality issues may arise. All other committees are wide open for any member or attender to sit in on. Friends normally meet weekly for meeting for worship, and monthly for "meeting for worship with a concern for business," which is open to all. Committees report to the latter meeting on a monthly basis, but otherwise work where and as expedient. It can take Friends half of forever to get anything outside of established routine done, but what we do sticks. Conversely, when a situation requires it Friends form and operate voluntary organizations in near real-time. Friends' Service Committees have crossed active battlefields in caravans carrying relief supplies to besieged civilians, literally using their religious authority and single-minded commitment as their only shield and weapon. Friends enjoy a certain notoriety for tolerance, but not the usual kind where someone is "tolerated" for the sake of appearance or process compliance: Every "sinner" is welcome, and as living proof one could point to several committed atheists who rate as 'weighty' Friends in the community. Disclaimer II: The above is presented as a resource for anarchists and other loose ends looking to mine historical and (in effect) covert examples of social organization for background, and any components that can be usefully recycled. No warranty of fitness for use for any purpose is expressed or implied. Especially beware, the real life Religious Society of Friends lives up to the bare bones description above "on a good day". In addition to routine errors routinely corrected, on occasion a Meeting or responsible Committee may go off-track and require correction from the floor, so to speak. I am not supposed to know that a Meeting may occasionally "lose its minutes" covering periods of time when scandalous events were afoot, and neither are you. We get a lot of lookey-loos, typically people who see the RSOF as an elite family-friendly social club for liberal academics and professionals. Some of them even settle in and convert, to the full extent they are so led. BTW, Quakers are "Friends of Jesus" [John 15:14-16] first and foremost, and friends of each other by virtue of that relationship. Thus ends St. Erroneous' Epistle to the Cypherpunks. I leave you with this prophesy: Many things shall come to pass, yea verily shall many things come to pass. :o)

On 12/12/2017 07:02 AM, juan wrote:

I wanted to comment on the quaker thing as well. The word consensus is derived from and requires consent. Theocracy or religious fraud, especially of the jew-kkkristian variety has fuck to do with consent. By definition fraud destroys consent.

By the way, jew-kristian theocracy is the very opposite of anarchism and cypherpunkry since its anti-philosophical root is an all knowing all seeing tyrant.

Back in the day Friends were one of many radical social movements that appeared in response to the early development of the Industrial Age and the first appearance of a "middle class." These movements were shaped in large part by the rapid spread of literacy and availability of books, including bibles which common people could read and interpret for themselves for the first time. The Partition Act and other radical social/economic changes in England and Europe during the 1600s turned the world upside down - the origin of the word "revolution" - and the stage was set for interesting times. The Ranters, Diggers, Levellers, and many other factions are long gone, but the Mennonites, Amish, Unitarians and Quakers remain with us today. One thing all these movements had in common was their rejection of Church and State authority, in preference for what would today be called "human rights" and religious freedom. All met and most survived violent persecution by State authorities. Early Friends called the Roman and Post-Roman churches the apostasy, in reference to their self evident abandonment of the Christian teachings of their own Bible in favor of collusion with State authority and the financial interests of "hireling ministers." Along with the other groups mentioned above, Friends were religiously motivated anarchists owing no spiritual /or/ material allegiance to any established institution. These groups developed institutions of their own, some more anarchistic than others but all grounded in radical egalitarianism, voluntary membership, and adherence to community standards developed by the communities themselves. In England the Friends existed in substantial numbers, and caused so much trouble that William Penn, advocating on their behalf, was able to obtain a Crown Charter for a colony in the New World expressly as a dumping ground for English Quakers. More than enough were eager to get out from under Crown authority to quickly populate Pennsylvania with Friends. The Quakers considered the Native Americans as human as themselves, and saw a clear reflection of their own methods of self-governance in the tribal councils and federations process. The Friends paid for the land they took and engaged in normal commerce with the locals. As a result, Friends came to be known as "the honest white men" and still enjoy a unique reputation among native communities. Friends were among the earliest and most stubborn of pacifist organizations, refusing to bear arms. They also openly refused to use the language and mannerisms of master and servant, hard wired into English culture, and for this many were jailed, tortured and/or killed. Their adamant rejection of merely human authority, in preference for local self rule on a model often /mistaken/ for consensus by outsiders, completes the picture of the most viable anarchist movement to emerge from the Age of Enlightenment. It's been a long, winding road since then with plenty of forks and dead ends. Our numbers have collapsed, in the U.S. midwest a conventional "protestant" sect has co-opted our Society's name, but Friends are still here: A pale shadow of the Society's former self, banging along on two or three cylinders but still capable of exercising social and political influence /far/ beyond what our numbers would suggest. We rarely advertise and never lay a high pressure sales pitch on anyone. Sociologists studying religious beliefs and attitudes in the U.S. find that conventional churches have been largely abandoned by people who want, ironically enough, exactly what the Religious Society of Friends has to offer... but they don't know we exist.

On 12/12/2017 08:40 PM, juan wrote:

got a few more comments about quakers but Ill start with this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_drugs

"in 1874 the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade was formed in England by Quakers led by the Rev. Frederick Storrs-Turner."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Suppression_of_the_Opium_Trade

Early Friends were opposed to recreational drugs of any kind. But in modern times, I have attended "meeting for drinking with a concern for business" and nobody noticed it was funny until I pointed that out. Ya see, the local Meeting's outreach committee reserved a table for a meeting at a restaurant, but the table was not ready when we showed up so we were seated at the bar. Lucky me, they had Rolling Rock in stock. Friends have always had their say on social and political issues. George Fox sailed to the West Indies to preach against the evils of slavery, and John Woolman is credited as one of the first major American abolitionists. Quakers, Mennonites and their ilk who refused to serve in World War II were sent to prison with black radicals who also refused to serve (history seems to have forgotten them), and the resulting cross fertilization of ideas and methods help shape the later Civil Rights movement we are told so many pretty lies about today, starting with the one about how it succeeded and is over and done with. Every town of any size named a street after MLK Jr., what more do "those people" want?! During the Vietnam War, thousands of draftees who knew the score refused to serve and were /not/ jailed, thanks to laws lobbied for by Quakers and etc., and help from draft counselors who themselves were mostly Quakers. I seem to recall that /five/ people who had assistance from NIBSCO were successfully prosecuted as draft dodgers during that war; the rest just sat out the war in the U.S., living their otherwise normal lives. I got my NIBSCO / CCW Draft Counselor training back during the Bush II Administration, when it looked possible that the draft might get started back up. Richard Nixon was a "birthright Friend" but that means nothing unless one also becomes a "convinced Friend," which he most emphatically did not. Joan Baez is still a Friend, although she never talks about that in public because she doesn't want to disrupt her Meeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_%28United_States%29

"Prohibition was supported by the dries, primarily pietistic Protestant denominations that included Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, New School Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans,"

Any time one sees Friends misidentified as "Protestant" check to see what part of the world the "Quakers" in question came from. If the American Midwest (and today, sub-Saharan Africa), they are not what George Fox would have called Friends: Long story short, Protestants managed to co-opt the Quaker name and some of its outward appearances during the first big western expansion into the Ohio River Valley and etc. They managed this by virtue of massively outnumbering the Friends who went west and built the first schools, which were also the first Meeting Houses (and later, so-called Quaker "churches") in the new farm towns on what was then the Western Frontier. The descendants of these congregations are now called "Conservative Friends," and yes they are Protestants - complete with hireling ministers, programmed religious services, right-wing political commitments, gender discrimination written into their policy docs, and etc. As individuals most are very nice people, I prefer their company to any other Protestant denomination I can name. But as an organization it's fatally flawed, and many Yearly Meetings in the U.S. have formally disaffiliated themselves from the "Conservative" national body, Friends United Meeting. Just now my own Yearly Meeting is supporting efforts to educate the African congregations started by FUM "Protestant Quaker" missionaries, on the actual history and religious practice of Friends. Reports from the field indicate very enthusiastic uptake, perhaps in large part because the typical problems in African social politics and Protestant social politics are a good match and potentate each other, reliably creating worst case outcomes. What I call "real" Quaker practice provides cognitive and organizational tools that can be applied to attack and solve those problems... "on a good day, all else being equal." :o)

On 12/11/2017 08:10 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 12/10/2017 01:06 PM, g2s wrote:

...

-------- Original message -------- From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> Date: 12/10/17 8:02 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: What is consensus?

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:42:02AM -0800, g2s wrote:

...

Consensus is defined as agreement. Voting is one process to (hopefully) reach it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

lol "If voting could change things, it would have been outlawed." -- anon

Just check what fucks were elected by voting all over the world.

I was NOT making an argument that voting works to change anything systematic in media driven indoctrinated societies. I was simply defining the word... further consensus Agreement doesn't always work either, but if the "block" is honored it slows down the process and has potential for correcting mistakes that may be harder to repair after the fact.

Re "What is consensus?" Mirmir replied "Ask any Quaker."

That's me, and I am now required (dammit) to give a straight answer because I'm a Friend in good standing, a "made guy" so to speak.

Thanks, Steve :)

The quote from Georgi above seems to be part of the original thread so at least there's a context to answer the question in.

Consensus means agreement. And that means a messy, organic, all too human hairball at work. The Quakers are often accused of governing themselves by consensus, and have been so accused for something approaching 400 years. Here's how we do it, more or less.

Disclaimer:

The following is not the "rules of RSOF engagement," so much as my own observation of Friends' process, developed from 20+ years of full participation, including lots of committee work for my monthly and yearly Meetings. I do push the Gospel of Truth in the manner of Friends, promoting the religious practice that makes Friends "a peculiar people" - which, back in the day, meant a "distinct" group.

In practical application among Friends, consensus arises from local communities, small enough that everyone is at most at one remove in acquaintance from one another. Friends participate, first and foremost, in an agreement among themselves to work together in compliance with a specified process for decision making.

When geographically dispersed Friends participate in regionally sponsored projects (and we do, non-stop), representatives selected by participating Meetings form committees; these committees execute the same consensus procedure to arrive at their recommendations to the regional body as a whole. No decision on matters of faith and practice or Meeting business becomes "binding" without advice and approval from Meeting as a whole.

Quakers don't do "consensus" as that word is understood in a secular context. We make decisions based on "a sense of the Meeting," and we call the process for that discernment. Any Friend who has had Quakerism 101 understands that we are discerning the will of God, most properly so in silence broken only by vocal ministry as so led; having found that, the next step is to seek "way forward" toward compliance with our orders from the head office.

Friends do present a peculiar position on God, this time in the modern sense of the word peculiar. Weighty Friends (made gals and guise who may speak rarely but do command attention, for reasons) have long agreed: Nobody can define or describe God. But whatever that word stands for, we know it when we see it in motion, and accept that once set on a path by that force, one must do /something/ regardless of personal preferences or interests.

"Friends don't vote," but we do discriminate: Membership in our Society is accomplished by a consensus between oneself and the local Meeting's membership at large - there's a formal process for that, and new or transferred members are recorded or "minuted" as such by the clerk of their Meeting. Roles such as Clerk of Meeting, Trustees, etc. will nearly always be filled by members of Meeting, as will committees that engage in pastoral counseling where confidentiality issues may arise. All other committees are wide open for any member or attender to sit in on.

Friends normally meet weekly for meeting for worship, and monthly for "meeting for worship with a concern for business," which is open to all. Committees report to the latter meeting on a monthly basis, but otherwise work where and as expedient.

It can take Friends half of forever to get anything outside of established routine done, but what we do sticks. Conversely, when a situation requires it Friends form and operate voluntary organizations in near real-time. Friends' Service Committees have crossed active battlefields in caravans carrying relief supplies to besieged civilians, literally using their religious authority and single-minded commitment as their only shield and weapon.

Friends enjoy a certain notoriety for tolerance, but not the usual kind where someone is "tolerated" for the sake of appearance or process compliance: Every "sinner" is welcome, and as living proof one could point to several committed atheists who rate as 'weighty' Friends in the community.

Disclaimer II: The above is presented as a resource for anarchists and other loose ends looking to mine historical and (in effect) covert examples of social organization for background, and any components that can be usefully recycled. No warranty of fitness for use for any purpose is expressed or implied.

Especially beware, the real life Religious Society of Friends lives up to the bare bones description above "on a good day". In addition to routine errors routinely corrected, on occasion a Meeting or responsible Committee may go off-track and require correction from the floor, so to speak. I am not supposed to know that a Meeting may occasionally "lose its minutes" covering periods of time when scandalous events were afoot, and neither are you.

We get a lot of lookey-loos, typically people who see the RSOF as an elite family-friendly social club for liberal academics and professionals. Some of them even settle in and convert, to the full extent they are so led.

BTW, Quakers are "Friends of Jesus" [John 15:14-16] first and foremost, and friends of each other by virtue of that relationship.

Thus ends St. Erroneous' Epistle to the Cypherpunks.

I leave you with this prophesy: Many things shall come to pass, yea verily shall many things come to pass.

:o)