[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01227: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:04:40 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373

Bruce & all,

Sociocracy-TYPE or consensus variants are slowly growing in number and success e.g. in Spain's Mondragón Coopeerative Corporation which has successfully 'layered' NESTED NETWORKS of stake-holder governed corporations and subunits of manageable size, in total comprising tens of thousands of participants.
More such variants arfe working in some U S states as described by Dr Shann Turnbull,
Principal International Institute for Self-governance ,
I am slowly compiling for next month's forum my response to your request for my version of a Utopia. It has covered this issue.
It is too dismissive to call consensus impossible in large groups. When large groups 'organically' / functionally split into manageable units of concern while retaining liaison among the layers of administration it tends to succeed better than alternative voting systems.
-- Doug
===

hdr01227-tiff.gif

Thank you Doug for your comments on this.

Perhaps this will be used in a real world setting and than better evaluated.
I agree Sociocracy is a useful tool, but in a community of 20,000 - 200,000 - 4 million, I do not believe you can reach a "Sociocratic" consensus. To many people are adamant in their views.

Abortion was illegal in these United States, but that was changed in 1973.
Roe v Wade
http://tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
ROE v. WADE. Decided January 22, 1973. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. ...
Bush and his cohorts are trying hard to over through that decision. Bush stacked the court with his type and the next decision may ban abortion. Another reason people should vote in all judges. Another reason the people must run their government. This is the issue.

If we see the total community (eligible)  allowed to vote (choose) what is unfair about that?

I am not talking party politics or representative gov. I am speaking DD where the people are making the decisions and the "government" is following their orders. (This is what we are trying to set up isn't it?) Granted the people cannot make all decisions, but if they have their guidelines set tight, there should be little room for  error, and if error is made than I&R can correct it. (Provided the requirement for I&R petitioners is low so I&R can work.)

Again the difficulty is the number of active citizens who would participate in all this.

 To go for any "super majority" would likely stop many necessary decisions from being made at all, which would stop any new ideas such as construction, changes in procedures etc.
All the Best on this journey -------- Bruce

On 5/30/07, Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au wrote:

Dear Bruce and all,

I copy your 26 May message below and insert commegts in CAPITALS.
        --      Doug
===



Dear Doug and group,

I have been following sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com for over six months
and it is a very interesting useful model of discussion. There are many
tools of democracy like the citizen juries, problem solving task
forces, and other NGO functions which could use Sociocracy. Sociocracy
requires one Aim per group. A group is made up of nine people, than
that group appoints another group which is subservient to the first
group and so on.
        ...
        [DE:]  -- SOCIOCRACY IS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL SLOWLY FLOURISHING
DECISION-MAKING TEMPLATES USING NESTED NETWORKS OF DECISION-MAKING
GROUPS OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS WITH CROSS-LIAISON BETWEEN RELATED
GROUPS  INCLUDING THE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION ABOVE AND BELOW,  A GROUP
SUBDIVIDES IF LIAISON AND OTHER CHANGES START TO  ENLARGE THE GROUP
BEYOND  A MANAGEABLE SIZE THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO EXPRESS A VIEW
SEEKING  CONSENSUS:--   I.E. IF POSSIBLE NO CONTINUING OBJECTION BY ANY
MEMBER.  NON-SOCIOCRATIC EXAMPLES  ARE DESCRIBED  IN WRITINGS OF DR
SHANN TURNBULL INCLUDING THE MONDRAGÓN COOPERATIVE CORPORATION OF SPAIN
AND SEVERAL U.S. CORPORATIONS.
        ...
The first decision is to have an AIM. The group must agree so they have
the same thinking on this matter. How can such a group have an Aim
allowing abortion, when half the population is addamentaly against it?
Would you than have another group with the Aim banning abortion? Or of
Peace, when half the population wants War? Or half wants National
Health Care and the other half wants Private Pay Health Care? If you
collected most from one group or the other it would not represent the
population. If you had 50-50 how could you achieve consensus?
        ...
        [DE:] -- UNIVERSAL DECLARATIONS OF RIGHTS ARISE FROM WIDE CONSENSUS OF
GOVERNMENTS AND AIM TO ACHIEVE WORDING THAT WILL ENCOURAGE THE WIDEST
NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES.  THEY REFER IN A VAGUE GENERAL WAY TO ABORTION
BUT DO NOT COMMIT SIGNATORY NATIONS TO ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF ABORTION
NOR TO ABSOLUTE FEEDOM OF CHOICE FOR PREGNANCY BEARERS.
        SOME OF THE SIGNATORY NATIONS ALLOW EACH MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE A
CONSCIENCE VOTE (EXEMPT FROM PARTY RULINGS) ON SUCH CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUES (E.G. IN AUSTRALIA).  THAT DOES NOT PREVENT CONTINUING GROUP
DELIBERATION AND PUBLIC DEBATE.  THE "NESTED NETWORKS OF STAKEHOLDERS"
APPROACH OF SOCIOCRATS AND THE PRINCIPAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE
FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE  IS MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN THE GENERAL U.N. ASSEMBLY
AND SECURITY SYSTEM RULE BY FINANCIAL AND MILITARY PRESSURE AND BIG
POWER VETOS.  IT IS ALSO FAIRER THAN THE RULE BY A 50% + 1 VOTING
DECISION SYSTEM PREFERRED BY MOST POLITICAL PARTIES THAT GOVERN OR
DOMINATE OPPOSITIONS ("THE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT")  IN OUR LARGELY
2-PARTY SYSTEMS..
        ...

As pointed out in their news letter;

"Consent decision making only works in a group of people who:

1. Share a common aim and
2. Can reflect together on how best to achieve that aim
3. The group consents to who is included in the group (and thus in
the decision making).

If these three conditions cannot be met, then majority vote
orautocratic decision making works best."
        ...
        [DE:] -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY EXAMPLE GIVEN BY ANYONE OF WHEN
AUTOCRATIC DECISION MAKING WORKS BEST EXCEPT FOR AUTOCRATS AND THEIR
FOLLOWERS.
        ...
Is eliminating someone from a group democratic?
        ...
        [DE:] --  IT MAY BE IF THAT SEEMS TO THE GROUP NECESSARY TO AVOID A
WORSE INJUSTICE.
THE DECISION SHOULD BE OPENLY JUSTIFIED AND THOSE IMPLEMENTING IT
ANSWERABLE AT ALL RELEVANT LEVELS OF ADMINISTRATION. THE GROUP MAY
CO-OPT CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS, CRIMINOLOGISTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWERS OR
OTHER SPECIALIZED GROUPS IN RELEVANT DELIBERATIONS.
        ...
Than there is the issue of Hierarchy. The "Lead" Group dominates all
(sub) other groups. Thus ten people dominate everyone. If a member, ten
groups down wants to change something, they must convince their group,
and each group on the way up. This is a bit time consuming.
        ...
        [DE:] --  I AGREE THAT BROADER OR "HIGHER LEVEL" ADMINISTRATION NEEDS
TO BE ABLE TO HEAR APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS OF A  "LOWER" OR MORE
SPECIALIZED GROUP, AND POWER TO IMPLEMENT ITS DECISIONS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS DEFINING FEDERAL DIVISIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY,
DEVOLUTION, SUBSIDIARITY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROTOCOLS.
        ...
I suggest that information which would provide both arguments should be
public and each person must make their own choice on a ballot. This is
the democratic model.
        ...
        [DE:] --  I AGREE.
        ...
The work now progressing to develop a people's clearing house followed
by a people's parliament model which would allow voting on each
initiative before a binding referendum seems a good DD process. The
difficulty seems always to have the necessary participation to actually
be "democratic".

Kind Regards, Bruce

On 5/25/07, Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au wrote:

Sorry, Bruce, I can't agree.
Far from it being "obvious" to me that "Sociocracy can NOT apply" to DD,
I see voting WITHOUT nested networks of stakeholders (e.g. as in
Sociocrac,
the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation etc., will be hijacked by
mmaffiaccs:
= media, military, admnistrative, financial, fundmentalist/fanatic,
industrial,
academic complexes, caels ad cabals}.



Quite obviously Sociocracy can NOT apply to WDDM
This also brings into question the whole "consensus" rational.
I think we need to stick with voting. (democracy)
Bruce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com <
...
[cut by D E ]
...


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]