[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]
00895: Re: government is the entire unit
From: |
Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com> |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:52:26 +0000 |
Subject: |
Re: government is the entire unit |
Bruce Eggum wrote:
Dear Richard,
Here in the US, government is the entire unit. This
includes the Military, Health, Education, Welfare Social Services,
Social Security etc. Government includes all these workers; police,
fire people, highway construction and maintenance, etc. Some public
Utilities such as phone and electricity are "owned" by the
communities and they to are a part of government.
Thus, when you say eliminate
government, (as I understand the term) you would destroy everything
the people have built for their communities, their
society.
I do not know how to even ask a
question to clarify the matter. It is good to realize we are not
talking about the same thing. Now how to get on the same
page?
Hi Bruce,
I am very pleased that our various dialogs are taking a more
positive turn.
I appreciate your comments about the nature of government. I
distinguish between the policy-making agencies of government, and
implementation agencies. The policy-making agencies include city
councils, county supervisors, state legislatures, Congress, and the
Executive. My proposals are about people taking over the policy-making
roles by means of reaching consensus on policy. When they reach
consensus, then they can elect slates of candidates from their
own ranks to all the policy-making agencies.
As regards implementation agencies, I would also add to this
corporations and banks -- and all those entities that have the power
to do things within our society. These would indirectly come under the
control of the people when the people control the policy-making
agencies. I would not propose to disband all these entities, but to
incrementally shift them to productive purposes, by radical changes in
legislation, as determined by the democratic dialog process.
Obviously no one person (you or I) could or should manage
all these national decisions and implement them. An administration is
needed. Here is where I think Direct Democracy, the Swiss form would
be fitting to our situation.
It could than grow, and if people took
more responsibility, government could actually be run directly by the
people. Once the people were able to make all the decisions which our
"Congress" now makes, and be able to "administer"
meaning to operate the many departments, keeping them accountable etc.
It would be simple to than make a referendum to utilize this
"direct" democracy form of government.
Our concepts are getting very close here.
Now, perhaps you meant to modify the form of government?
That would take a large educational process of media, books, websites,
etc. Once people were convinced of this method their would be lots of
people joining who could eventually "change" the form of
government.
The form of government would be unchanged at first, as I've
explained above. What I've learned about dialog is that people don't
'get it' through education, but through the personal experience of
dialog, and learning that agreement can be reached with their fellows.
When they experience this, then they 'know' that a better version of
democracy is possible. They don't need to design (or learn) a new
system of governance, rather they start creating / evolving a new
system together.
This is what I hope WDDM will choose to do. By providing a
site which educates the people on the merits of SOME form of direct
democracy, people the world over could begin to process this in their
communities, discussing it, tearing it apart and putting it together
until they have some workable form of Direct Democracy.
...
Here we are in agreement. I would hope that we are still in the
discussion stage as regards which form of direct democracy we want to
promote. After we reach agreement on a form, then we would need to
figure out how we work together to promote it.
UK Dictionary
government
group noun {C} (WRITTEN ABBREVIATION govt)
the group of people who officially control a
country:
1 the system used for controlling a country, city,
or group of people:
2 the activities involved in controlling a country,
city, group of people, etc:
Yes, governments are about controlling us, as is reflected in
each of these definitions. My proposal is to create a new form of
governance that does not include government. All agencies, even the
ones that now write legislation, would become implementation agencies,
implementing the consensus will of the people.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/governance
gov·er·nance
(gvr-nns)
n.
1. The act,
process, or power of governing; government: "Regaining a sense of the state is thus an
absolute priority, not only for an effective policy against . . .
terrorism, but also for governance itself" Moorhead
Kennedy.
2. The state of
being governed.
My proposals are about 'the process of governing'. Moorehead is
saying that we need a strong state in order to control people. I am
saying we need a new form of governance so that the state can't
control us.
I think this exchange greatly clarifies our positions.
Rather than debating the two forms, I would suggest we continue
clarifying, until we all understand exactly what each other has in
mind. In that process, we are likely to move still closer together in
our views.
best regards,
richard
[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]