Re: apologize for my "get back" poor attitude

[Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>]

Bruce Eggum wrote:

> > Dear Richard,
> >
> >
> > I apologize for my "get back" poor
> > attitude.

Me too. And thanks for putting things back on a positive footing. :-)

> > Your effort to educate people to your model is no
> > different than WDDM trying to educate about Direct
> > Democracy...

True enough, but this raises a question. Is WDDM about (1) discussing what direct democracy is, or is it about  (2) promulgating a particular model of direct democracy, one that I don't think can work?

If it's about (1), then I don't think my model has been given an equal hearing in most of our dialog. If it's about (2), then I think my participation here is counterproductive to your purposes. I should go away and let you get on with it.  I have no desire to inhibit other people's initiatives.

> > However,  I took your remarks on WDDM as a put down
> > to WDDM. Mainly because you seem to think any organization is
> > hierarchical and thus "the people" have no input. This is
> > all in how the org is set up. A common group of people can be
> > organized (an organization) in that they have agreed how to vote, how
> > to make group decisions. This could be the local card club. (should we
> > go to a Steak House or  a Seafood restaurant?)

My objections are not about organizations in general, but about whether it makes sense for WDDM to be an organization. If WDDM is about (1) above, then I don't think 'organization' makes sense. If it's about (2), then it might make sense, but again, I shouldn't be here.

> > The other thing to note is that organizations have NO VOTE
> > in political matters! They can holler all day long but they have no
> > vote. That is why a REFERENDUM is so important because it is the
> > peoples decision.
> >     Even if your system were used in a town
> > meeting, it is the REFERENDUM that is the peoples voice. Some kind of
> > election or decision making structure is necessary to determine the
> > decision. The people structure an election system to do
> > this.

My model is about a community reaching consensus through dialog. The only voting would be to elect a slate of candidates to the city offices by a 100% vote.  The elected officials would then implement the policies that are determined by the community's ongoing dialog process.  The officials would be ordinary citizens, not politicians (as in the Cuban system).

> > I will go out on a limb here and define democracy as many
> > refer to it as Representative Democracy. Here you have others making
> > choices. Direct Democracy, (actually Democracy by meaning) has the
> > peoples direct input to  the government and control of it, and
> > requires decisions to be made by Referendum. They may have appointed,
> > elected, hired people but the people have final say.

So we have two different models of direct democracy, but I'm not sure they're that far apart. Where you talk of 'referendum', I would talk of a 'consensus document'.

> > Of course not all decisions need to be made by referendum.
> > People are hired to pay bills, decide necessary purchases etc. However
> > if the people making these decisions are "controlled" by the
> > people and their decisions are "controlled " by the people,
> > than democracy, direct democracy exists.

We agree on this, but we have different schemes for how the people exercise their control.

> > We need think tanks, bulletin boards, video, computers,
> > newspapers, media and all of that to inform people. Yes, some of these
> > will have differing views, but that is the way of discussion and
> > allows informed peoples to choose.

You are talking about people choosing among alternatives presented to them. I'm talking about people arriving at their own proposals through dialog. Rather than someone 'informing people', my model is about people acquiring the information they need to find solutions to their problems.

thanks for the dialog,

richard