Having said all this and having talked to themarkymark in this comment thread (and others before him), I think that the witnesses don't hold themselves accountable for giving rules, since they seem to think that the so called white paper says it all.
Since the analogy of a crab bucket is used, they are more or less saying, that the so called community (each and every single individual crab) rules. That can be translated to "every one rules". But if everyone rules, then no one rules. A place cannot be ruled by everyone.
If that is believed, rules are not there. What IS there is personal individual whim, taste, opportunism, hostility, sympathy, pity.
Since the witnesses say that they cannot give any clear rules because of "decentralization" they will not give out any clear rule to which they (as well as every one else) can be held accountable. Because accountability would be something all actors could refer to. But when you have no reference and no authority, arguing and negotiating becomes futile. Every virtue signaling becomes futile.
Indeed, this is the case.
In the broader context the illusion exists as a phenomena, that there is no authority but one's own, that there is no objectivity but only subjectivity, the individual is condemned to look only at himself as a reference and to neglect perspectives (and facts) from a point of view other than his own, the resultant error turns the many individuals into a righteous mob that believes it can exercise authority based on the individual's presumed sense of justice by means of the sole point of view AND immediate, not thorough, thought.
When the focus is taken away from the power that issues regulations (but not rules), because the issuers no longer feel responsible for their actions, they have rid themselves of any vulnerability.
Although they act as shells for permanent top-down regulation of individual issues (which are available as an inexhaustible pool), they then raise their hands and say: We have placed the issue in your hands, so may you now resolve the conflict with each other (not with us), which we have prepared the ground for but which is beyond our control.
They act like a confectioner who takes an existing successful recipe for sand cakes and says: "From now on, it is forbidden to use flour for sand cakes. Anyone who uses flour anyway and is reported by those who have accepted the use of flour as criminal is confronted with the act of litigation."
And one is no longer allowed to ask how it can be that the pastry chef decides that flour can no longer be used for sand cakes. But this pastry chef points his finger at those who have accepted “flour is forbidden” and says: “Well, if I'm so wrong, why do your accusers think exactly like me?"
Basically, the legislator seem not to care what happens next.
Since he has stripped himself of his own authority - the ability to make careful considerations - to know what is needed or not needed, and to be careful with law-making anyway. He simply enacts one "law" after another because he thinks that is what is expected of him (listening only to the doomsday sayers or the utopian shouters - through the use of the screen).
But this cannot be a reasonable expectation, because a law cannot be responsible for all people and all situations and should only be invoked when there is no other alternative.
But where the legislator pretends that there is no alternative from the outset and that the actors under his alleged authority do not and cannot know anything about alternatives, he is basically saying: I am the law and I know that my law has no alternative. But if you as a people disagree, you must be able to prove it and if you can't prove it, you will be punished/must submit.
I believe this is classically referred to as “proof reversal”.
This means that individuals no longer have to assume their innocence in principle, but rather has been put as principally guilty, and must first prove their innocence.
But to whom? The individual cannot address the legislator directly. One individual has to produce a conflict with some other individual (or company) which proves the regulation wrong (and the "law" as well). Or, the individual turns to a political party which still wants to listen and debate and is in opposition to the ruling party.
Which motivates me full circle to say that "ruling" legislators seem to have turned into an irresponsible bunch who believe in nothing higher than themselves.