Freepers Beware of the Non-Meeting Meeting (Vanity)

The next step after delphi will be implementing soviets.

Soviets are that Russian thing. Here’s the Encyclopedia Britannica on soviets:

“Soviet: Council that was the primary unit of government in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and that officially performed both legislative and executive functions at the all-union, republic, province, city, district, and village levels.”

In these soviets, unelected and unaccountable commissars and their useful idiots, without help from citizens or the messy give and take of democratic meetings or popular voting, developed utopian plans for the peasants. With the master blueprint in hand, the commissars clanged the meeting bell for all peasants to gather to form a “consensus.” (The word “consensus” is a word you’ll hear again and again.) Those who agreed with the plan would be in the “consensus.” Those who disagreed were ignored. This is how a soviet operates.

There’s a name for this kind of people control. The Russians called it soviet socialism.

(1)anonymity: the participants do not know who else is in the group;

Is the thinking that anonymity frees the participants to write unfettered opinions about the topic? If so, I wonder if that benefit is outweighed by the probability of anonymous observations actually sabotaging the process. One of the founding principles of our republic--now long gone--is the notion that you should be able to confront your accusers. Our county agencies now run on the principle that anyone can make an anonymous complaint.

Who held your meeting? Was is an neighbor? Was it your county planning department?

I have been to meetings help by a group of people who "want to help the county get a community plan" for our area. They get incorporated as a non-profit and get funding from the monster enviro/leftist/anti-American groups like the Pew foundation.

They hold a meeting and ask questions only they choose. If they like what you say they write it down, if they don't like what you say, in the ensuing heated discussion they will forget to write it down.

They will write a plan and claim the community had input. They will not let citizens review the draft or attend any meetings where they discuss the content of the plan after the initial meeting.

They do not have to let you see survey results or any drafts or include you in any subsequent meetings because they are not the government, they are a private nonprofit.

They however act like the government. When they are done, with the county's blessing, they will present the plan to the planning department who will approve it because the group has been coaxed by the county as to what to put in it. It will go to the board of superivisors who will thank the 'community' for their ability to put together such an excellent plan. They will vote to implement the plan.

The citizen, the people who actually live in the area and will be affected by the plan will have no say, because their government officials didn't write it. They will have lost their constitutional right to representation because now the community non-profit (mostly self appointed socialists) will be making the governmental decisions for the community not the citizen and his representative.

Your community will likely become very unlivable, because the goal is to deprive you of your property rights and force you to live a collectivists utopian ideal, no cars, no nonnative plants, no farming, no use of open space, tiny homes or high density apartments, etc etc etc.

Is the thinking that anonymity frees the participants to write unfettered opinions about the topic? If so, I wonder if that benefit is outweighed by the probability of anonymous observations actually sabotaging the process. One of the founding principles of our republic--now long gone--is the notion that you should be able to confront your accusers. Our county agencies now run on the principle that anyone can make an anonymous complaint.

No, the thinking is that if the responses are rendered anonymously, each participant can make further responses without being influenced, either favorably or unfavorably, by the reputation or notoriety of other participants. Remember, this is supposed to be used to extract opinion from a panel of knowledgeable experts, and to do it as efficiently as possible. It isn't supposed to be used for making complaints. If anyone were to make a personal attack, the moderator would likely delete that from the feedback anyway.

i'm speechless! this sounds like one of the phoniest techniques i have ever heard of.

thanks for your post.

Yes, very good. Make a note: Dr. Hogan suggests that we maintain the authenticity and sincerity of these proceedings. I think we all agree.

Next question?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.