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

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 13:26 -0500 18-06-2005, Bruce Eggum wrote:
> Dear Antonio,
>
>  I once again must confront your "Humble Opinion". I answer
>  in your "Humble Opinion" writings.
>
>  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".
>
>  <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.


Bruce,

We DD activists are already plenty of such alternatives. For
one, Aki Orr's Autonarchy at http://www.abolish-power.org ,
For another, Bernard Clayson's New political System at
http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk   take the people to
choose them, and you are done. Period.

Mine is another topic.

My point was, in short:

The people have been accustomed to think that the policies -
initiatives - alternatives that are dropped (top) down onto them
by the "officials" are genuine democratic policies.

I do not think so. To me, genuine democratic policies are
only those made up by the people, therefore one of the main
tasks, if not the greatest one, is allowing - facilitating the
people to build (bottom) up their own alternatives.

Here the distinction top-down / bottom up comes into play
and it is a distinction that only recently is being taken into
account by some of us DD discussants.  (As for yourself,
Bruce, you always opposed my attempts to expose it.)

Well, I agree, that with no alternative there is no choice.
But my firm belief is, it is the people who have to initiate
their own alternatives after their local, territory-linked needs,
- not after the more or less malicious suggestions made by
the opinion-makers and consent-manufacturers in office.

My "Humble opinion" is, without the people acknowledging
that they themselves, not their officials, must advance their
own initiatives bottom-up, and give their votes to elect only
those "officials" who pledged to perform such policies with
a bottom-up origin, as how ISPO http://www.simpol.org is
about, there is no way to perform Direct Democracy.

Consent-building leads unavoidably to consent-manipulation and
indoctrination -- see Noam Chomsky's writings about "media
control" and "the democracy of the propaganda".

But, once again, this is my humble opinion only.  Which means,
it can be wrong. Maybe your opinion -- in opposition to mine --
is right.  Well then?  I do not want to compete with yours, but
I cannot support your "consent-building" attitude any way.

It seems to me, in your reply you did not confront this "Humble
Opinion" of mine.  Therefore I cut off the remaining post with
your OT replies, waiting for a more consistent confrontation, if any.

Regards,  antonio



(remaining message deleted)