Re: [WDDM] Thoughts about our definitions of democracy (and a general ramble)

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

At 4:09 +0100 10-11-2006, Pras Anand wrote:
>  What is Direct democracy?
>
>  Isn't spending your money a direct democracy?
>  Have you heard of the terms E-Democracy, E-Governance,
>  E-Voting, E-Inclusion, E-tc.
>
>  I still find these discussions avoid the real point. Play little
>  social games of grand subjects. Or learn how to actually
>  create solutions on a scaleable level to try and explore
>  the real change in real terms. The issue of democracy is
>  so deep, that none of us can truly claim to understand it.

None of you?  Are you speaking "on behalf"?  On behalf of
whom, democratically speaking?


>  The meaning of democracy is easy to understand, but the
>  hard part is realising the implications. Very few people
>  have a broad understanding of people. They tend to know
>  a few people who are quite like them, so how can they
>  imagine what a democracy could really mean when many
>  kinds of people are placed into the equation.
>
>  On the larger scale, global shifts and trends are being
>  explored. If you are around these people, you might see
>  that they are not half as far as we'd like them to be. Their
>  ideas aren't usually too great, but at least they are having
>  them. There are some excellent advances in terms of true
>  ENGAGEMENT. They haven't really arrived there yet,
>  but they are and many people are changing that process
>  in small or big ways.
>
>  I'm confident that there are enough people in the corporate,
>  government and other agencies that are good. As company
>  policies change, so do the people who rise to the top. When
>  good people are higher in a company, the company will be
>  more responsible on the whole. It is too easy to point the
>  finger and say the current way sucks.
>
>  If the current way sucks - change it. Or sit down and shut
>  your complaining. Make a real difference, or complain
>  about the current situation. It's the same for very small
>  issues, like "i hate the taxes" to very big issues like "i will
>  defend my country's border from enemy attacks". Be a
>  player, soldier, protector, creator, connector or whatever,
>  but don't talk about it so much as if it's some intellectual
>  challenge. Go and look what is going on in the world and
>  how far we've actually come towards a better democracy.
>  Or to put it more acurately - a world where everyone has
>  the right to live as they want. I would add - as long as it
>  doesn't harm anyone else.

Unfortunately, the world I live in looks like a boat, where
no one can rightfully turn the helm to where one wants.

It seems to me, approaching "Democracy" in the light of
one's right ("the right to live as they want"), or in the light
of one's duty ("do not harm anyone else") is not the same,
even though both sides of the democratic coin seem to lead
to the same goal, to wit, Democracy.

IMHO, the "world where everyone has the right to live as
they want" approach is far more dangerous than the "do not
harm anyone else" approach.


>  Same old shit. Don't call it democracy or direct democracy
>  or whatever. If you have some special definition that you
>  want to give me as to what direct democracy means, make
>  sure it is a concept that makes sense - and is actually creating
>  a positive change.

Could the above shifting from rights to duties be the needed
change for honest Democracy to be up? I think it could, ad
am on this track.



>  Because, I don't see what is direct or democratic from
>  many of the writers I've read on this forum.
>  I've had some great contact with several people doing
>  some amazing stuff. But I just wanted to say that there
>  are always ways to achieve change. If you don't know
>  how - there are others here on the forum, that would
>  happily share links, websites, experiences etc. We got
>  to help each other - I'm just not sure how many people
>  are engaged in change. A lot of people talk about a lot.
>  But have they ever watched the life of brian? Come on
>  man, the people's front of judea was a joke from like 30
>  something years ago.
>
>  Things don't change that much because people
>  don't change that much. Same old patterns, same old shit.
>  Change today because you have the choice. Buy my book
>  - haha, kidding
>
>  I've seen a discussion about political ideologies but no
>  reference to technology, media, commercial activities
>  (and I don't mean hating the corporates as if they were
>  a species of "evil doers").

Well then?

To me, Direct Democracy is *basically* a social arrangement
where policies have a bottom-up origin, that is, where policies
are originated directly by the people.  If  the people lack of this
very basis as the necessary starting point, any one's speaking
of (direct) democracy looks like a joke.

Hence the main problem arises, how to get people into being
able to recognize directly (and build it up by themselves) the
democratic basis they need of,  if they really wanted to be
adjudged "Democracy".


Regards,

antonio