Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)

From:	Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:26:16 -0500
Subject:	Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)

I once again must confront your "Humble Opinion". I answer in your "Humble Opinion" writings.

Yesterday I was in a great hurry, so my reply to your sharp
question has been too hastened. Sorry for that. I shall deepen
my answer a bit more.

I think, during all these five years, we have spent lots of time
trying to define Democracy, but we did not try to define what
does "people" mean, whom we point out to as "the People".

<BE> Antonio, the people are all the two legged humans who reside in a community. The world being the largest community. I did not think there was a question about this.

<AR> In my opinion, "the people" are *indifferentiated* humans
who, in a democracy context, are empowered to vote.

<BE> I believe the people to be very capable of making choices for themselves. You obviously do not share this respect as you have labeled them indifferentiated which means: "Having no special structure or function; primitive; embryonic."

<AR> Within that same context, among them, there are also some
differentiated humans who have been given -- or who give
themselves -- a political function over "the indifferentiated
people". I mean, there are humans who are in office for
some political purpose over "the people". Since they are far
fewer than "the people", let's conveniently adjudge them "elite".

<BE> Well, those elite are in office often by consent of the people. Representative government is as far as we have evolved to date.

<AR> Now, it does not matter, who these officials are, and how
they have come to perform a sociopolitical function -- like
initiating a policy, or stating out a constitutional rule -- over
the indifferentiated people. They are an elite of top-siders,
and all what they will do *after their own initiative* over
the people, is top-down. This is IMHO the typical case of
the so-called "Representative Democracy" where the Reps
have the first and the last say on any policy.

<BE> This is true, but until the people choose differently, it will remain so. That is their democratic right you see. That is why we DD Activists are developing an alternative for people to choose. With no alternative, there is no choice.

<AR> Of course, also in our wanted DD arrangement, some
officials have to be chaired up by the bottom people in
order to implement policies and set up constitutional rules
-- but in which the people hold the first say, i.e., the right
of Initiative, and the last say, i.e., the right of controlling
every political issue via referendum.

<BE> Now you have suggested a DD Elite, to take over the RR Elite. Again, you talk and lead in circles which only come back to the starting place.

<AR> Coming to us. We, who have come to implement DD
discussion lists such as cicdd or WDDM, and who gave
ourselves the aim -- mission of getting *the People* into
the DD sociopolitical arrangement, by doing so are not
indifferentiated People, but an elite of activists. Therefore,
all what we do, all the policies - rules we may decide, are
to be adjudged *top-down* issues, since in doing so we
are an elite of activists who are setting up these policies
and rules over the People .

The "initiative" comes from all the people on all the lists asking for a system of direct democracy be developed and implemented. Thus we "activists" do not act without "permission", we act by initiative. The people would have to approve by vote (referendum) any suggested DD method we develop.

<AR> One might say that this difference is irrelevant, since we
are implementing policies and rules that give the People
the first and the last say on everything. Btw, this point
as been the kernel of endless discussions, and conflicts,
up to now.

<BE> Yes, because you and a very few others seem incapable of understanding that we are the people, developing a DD method for ourselves. If only one person wrote an acceptable DD method for governance, and if it were than accepted, discussed and approved by the people it would be a democratically preformed action and acceptable. It would be impossible for six billion people to "write" a structure. Thus we must write it.

<AR> I insist that this difference is relevant, because the People
are accustomed to assume the officials as *the authority*.
Therefore, when a policy is dropped onto them by some
official -- be the latter an elected politician or self-appointed
activist -- the People are incline to approve that policy-rule
not because it fits their territory-linked, bottom-up expressed
needs, but because they have been given it by the authority.

<BE> Here you seem to categorize ANY idea or method, once it achieves any approval or acceptance by the people as being "official" and therefore must be rejected.

<AR> The risk is great, IMHO, because this way the People do
approve "democratically" policies and rules being delivered
top-down to them by some authoritative opinion-makers and
consent-builders, not by themselves.

Therefore, IMHO, we DD activists must prevent the People
from the risk of assume any top-down given policy as really
democratic. It cannot be such, since it has been dropped from
top-down by initiative of an elite only - be the latter made with
the best committed DD activists -- ourselves included.

<BE> What risk? Here again you state ANY policy which has gained favor and thus is now supported also by those "elite" must be rejected. Your humble opinion has thrown the baby, the mother, the father and the bath tub out the window, than burned down the house!

<AR> This Is why I always opposed, and still will do, as much
as I can, those of us who claimed that the policies they
decide are policies made by the people bottom-up. No
such policy can be adjudged grassroots bottom-up, thus
DD, because it has not been initiated by the People, but
by a distinguished elite of DD activists who put themselves
in office -- even though with the best DD purposes and
knowledge.

<BE> You seem to forget the process Antonio. We write the structure of DD and THE PEOPLE vote it in or they vote it out. We activists, taking the initiative given us are developing structure so dd can exist in government and provide the people with direct policy and law making ability. If we do not develop the structure and wording of how a dd system works, the people will NEVER have anything to approve.

<AR> This is why I suggest us to call "fascist" all those officials
-- be they elected Reps or self-appointed activists -- who
pretend the policy they initiate and decide to be bottom-up,
as if these policies had been made "by the People".

<BE> It helps us see that only a fascist would empower themselves to defeat the people's efforts to develop a new and better government system which they can participate in. I invite you to join us Antonio in developing the peoples government.

3. The people discuss, change, and vote on the developed system. If it fails, it would be re-written until it is accepted by the people.

That is how DD works, initiative to do something, developed initiative of what to do, vote on developed initiative, approval or disapproval. Re-write with corrections and re-submitted to the people. This is what happened with the EU Constitution. It was rejected, and needs to be corrected before re-submission to the people. It remains to be seen if the people will take the initiative to submit their own EU Constitution, it is their choice.

On 6/17/05, Antonio Rossin wrote:

At 13:56 -0400 17-06-2005, John Baker wrote:

>  I am careful with the 'fascist' label. It is not a positive one and
>  therefore I believe it counteracts our fundamental argument that
>  everyone benefits under DD.

Except those who do not abdicate to their fundamental right to rule
over the people.  And those who want to to judge which the benefit
for the people has to be

>
>  The way I look at it is that DD is a form of fascism. The might
>  of the majority makes right. When the majority are obstructed
>  fascism suffers as does capitalism.

Please explain. The way I look at that, is that it this the fascist
who wants the voice of the majority not to be heard, eg. in the
form of I&R up to DD.

You can try to convince them (the fascist) that they suffer when
their wish (to oppress the majority) is not successful.

>  I realize this sound contradictory to PC sentiments but if you
>  read literature such as Mein Kampf you will see how fascist
>  arguments fit the idea of the right of the majority to impose
>  themselves on the minority. Only when this right is abridged
>  does fascism become an argument for oppression and intolerance
>  for those it defines as impeding this right.
>
>  The same argument applies for authoritarianism. Authority is
>  just when it is democratically assigned.  Any other political
>  situation demands authority be implemented by brute force.
>  This not an ideal. It simply is a statement of fact.

The same argument applies for consent-building. Very simply,
the fascist do systematically resort to the opinion-making and
consent-manufacturing P.R. technologies to prevent their own
elitist arguments from being dismissed by the people's 50%+1
majority eventually.

>
>  Therefore DD accomadates both sides of the political spectrum.
>  Those who see the danger in absolute power can be comforted
>  by the fact that power is wielded by a DD imposed elite.

DD does not apply to imposing elites that easy, IMHO.  Unless
you managed to build the people's consent to decide accordingly.

>  Those who desire authority and order can also be comforted by
>  a political system which is respected by the majority.
>
>  There is ZERO need to antagonize anyone in the argument
>  for DD. DD is a WIN WIN situation for everyone. Both liberal
>  and conservatives, the haves and the have-nots are empowered
>  by DD. If we make the DD argument this way, it becomes
>  unimpeachable. The only argument left against it is a pure distrust
>  of humanity in general which can be easily overcome by positivity.
>  ie the lack of hate mongering.
>
Then, why do you antagonize my arguments?  After all, what I am
looking for, it is discussing the parenting feedback in order to spot
the best model that may train children -- future democrats -- towards
the utmost of flexibility and tolerance of opposite opinions, instead of
fundamental rigidity towards ZEROing any argument that may appear
antithetical to your thesis.

best regards,

antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Antonio Rossin
>>Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>To: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com
>>CC: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>Subject: Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker  (2/2)
>>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:07:47 +0200
>>
>>Dear Franz, and forum members
>>
>>Yesterday I was in a great hurry, so my reply to your sharp
>>question has been too hastened. Sorry for that. I shall deepen
>>my answer a bit more.
>>
>>
>>I think, during all these five years, we have spent lots of time
>>trying to define Democracy, but we did not try to define what
>>does "people" mean, whom we point out to as "the People".
>>
>>In my opinion, "the people" are *indifferentiated* humans
>>who, in a democracy context, are empowered to vote.
>>
>>Within that same context, among them, there are also some
>>differentiated humans who have been given -- or who give
>>themselves -- a political function over "the indifferentiated
>>people".  I mean, there are humans who are in office for
>>some political purpose over "the people".  Since they are far
>>fewer than "the people", let's conveniently adjudge them "elite".
>>
>>Now, it does not matter, who these officials are, and how
>>they have come to perform a sociopolitical function -- like
>>initiating a policy, or stating out a constitutional rule -- over
>>the indifferentiated people. They are an elite of top-siders,
>>and all what they will do *after their own initiative* over
>>the people, is top-down.  This is IMHO the typical case of
>>the so-called "Representative Democracy" where the Reps
>>have the first and the last say on any policy.
>>
>>Of course, also in our wanted DD arrangement, some
>>officials have to be chaired up by the bottom people in
>>order to implement policies and set up constitutional rules
>>-- but in which the people hold the first say, i.e., the right
>>of  Initiative, and the last say, i.e., the right of controlling
>>every political issue via referendum.
>>
>>Coming to us. We, who have come to implement DD
>>discussion lists such as cicdd or WDDM, and who gave
>>ourselves the aim -- mission of getting *the People* into
>>the DD sociopolitical arrangement, by doing so are not
>>indifferentiated People, but an elite of activists. Therefore,
>>all what we do, all the policies - rules we may decide, are
>>to be adjudged *top-down* issues, since in doing so we
>>are an elite of activists who are setting up  these policies
>>and rules over the People .
>>
>>One might say that this difference is irrelevant, since we
>>are implementing policies and rules that give the People
>>the first and the last say on everything.  Btw, this point
>>as been the kernel of endless discussions, and conflicts,
>>up to now.
>>
>>I insist that this difference is relevant, because the People
>>are accustomed to assume the officials as *the authority*.
>>Therefore, when a policy is dropped onto them by some
>>official -- be the latter an elected politician or self-appointed
>>activist -- the People are incline to approve that policy-rule
>>not because it fits their territory-linked, bottom-up expressed
>>needs, but because they have been given it by the authority.
>>
>>The risk is great, IMHO, because this way the People do
>>approve "democratically" policies and rules being delivered
>>top-down to them by some authoritative opinion-makers and
>>consent-builders, not by themselves.
>>
>>Therefore, IMHO, we DD activists must prevent the People
>>from the risk of  assume any top-down given policy as really
>>democratic. It cannot be such, since it has been dropped from
>>top-down by initiative of an elite only - be the latter made with
>>the best committed DD activists -- ourselves included.
>>
>>This Is why I always opposed, and still will do, as much
>>as I can, those of us who claimed that the policies they
>>decide are policies made by the people bottom-up. No
>>such policy can be adjudged grassroots bottom-up, thus
>>DD, because it has not been initiated by the People, but
>>by a distinguished elite of DD activists who put themselves
>>in office -- even though with the best DD purposes and
>>knowledge.
>>
>>This is why I suggest us to call "fascist" all those officials
>>-- be they elected Reps or self-appointed activists -- who
>>pretend the policy they initiate and decide to be bottom-up,
>>as if these policies had been made "by the People".
>>
>>Hoping this helps,
>>
>>antonio
>>
>>
>>At 10:02 +0200 16-06-2005, Antonio Rossin wrote:
>>>IMHO, the elite are the officials, be them politicians or
>>>lobbyists or also burecrauts or activist volunteers, that
>>>does not matter.
>>>The people are the commoner ones "in the streets"
>>>
>>>antonio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 9:45 +0200 16-06-2005, Franz Isemann wrote:
>>>>Dear Antonio,
>>>>you wrote among other things:
>>>>
>>>><<To me, at this stage DD means some committed volunteers
>>>>to prepare  the fittest communication context in which the
>>>>people -- not an elite -- may have the first and the last say
>>>>on everything>>
>>>>
>>>>Can you explain the definition of the people as opposed to an elite ??
>>>>Are not the people also an elite ?  Are not the elite also people ?
>>>>I am still having difficulties with your language, sorry.
>>>>Franz

00357: Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)