| From: | Michael Stansfield <pure_democracy(at)yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:15:04 -0800 (PST) |
| Subject: | Re: RE: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK. |
The how of Direct Democracy, I believe, is the most difficult questions to answer. The movement splinters multiple avenues of the Direct Democracy and rigid disagreements on form and method. Where we share agreement is on the problems within the Republic. I've been working on a mechanism for the last 17 years now and am now ready to publish my work (with a few updates to the last chapter). Does anyone know any good publishers or literary agents looking for or willing the accept Direct Democracy manuscripts for book publication?
Michael Stansfield
The Direct Democracy Movement needs to be about developing the capacity for
citizens to choose the issues they wish to vote on -- whether that is world peace
or banning crunchy peanut butter -- and then making sure that those decisions
are binding on their legislators. The movement must never advocate a specific
policy, or it will lose all credibility. DDM must focus only on the mechanism.
B. Thomas Marking
admin1(at)FirstDemocracy.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:38 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.
Dear all,
The past few opinions on whether we should link up with a peace initiative highlights the key problems facing WDDM.
Nicholas Durand has pointed out that we should be concerned with promoting Direct Democracy rather than peace, human rights, gender equality etc. This raises the philosophical question - whether promoting Direct Democracy is synonymous with promoting these human values. Taking a broad view and if we speak from the heart it is 'yes'. This is why Nicholas himself says he is for peace at the end of his post. However there is always the tendency to allow the mind to supercede the heart and make it the deciding authority. Inevitably the mind sees several issues in it and wants to tackle each one separately and not mix them up
together.
If only if we think and act from our heart then then we would tend to integrate matters. Problems would tend to get simplified rather than multiplied. Blind faith is also dangerous. An enlightened approach is needed. Georges Metanomski's caution is worth noting. However everything in this world is action and reaction. If only there is an enlightened focus on peace then the agressiveness of the action-reaction cycle would come down paving the way for lasting peace.
PVR
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 Nicolas Durand wrote :
>Dear all,
>
>I also support the idea of using our normal decisional process.
>
>But this raises an interesting concept issue (and you know that I am an
>endless supporter of peace):
>Who should we partner with?
>
>If a neo-Nazi party wants to send a petition to the UN to
commemorate
>Hitler's death date, will we support this?
>
>I take an extreme example to make my point: our aim is to promote direct
>democracy, not peace, human rights, gender equality and the like. HOPEFULLY,
>the people will WANT peace, human rights, gender equality, etc., but is it
>really up to US to promote these values?
>
>We could have a "current petitions" links page with all DD real-world
>examples, but then, we must be ready to put ALL DD initiatives on it.
>
>Just my opinion. Again, I want peace as well!
>
>Take care,
>
>Nico
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: mantell [antell_m(at)verizon.net]
>Sent: jeudi, 28. février 2008 06:24
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net; wddm(at)mkolar.org; Nicolas
>Durand; George L.
Kokkas Law Office
>Subject: Re: [WDDM] Fwd: RE:LINK.
>
>Hello Mirek,
>I like your idea. I'll support it.
>But I'd like to use our normal decisional process. Why not do this by a
>vote of the executive board? If the executive board buys the idea
>quickly, then we could act immediately thereafter. Passage by the
>executive board would normally be followed by a membership-wide
>referendum to validate the executive board action more permanently.
>So, I recommend that we use our charter mechanism for action. It would
>be the right thing, both for this issue, and for dealing with future
>issues.
>Mark
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------
>Miroslav Kolar wrote:
> > Do you have any objections to join the WDDM site into the network of
> > global
peace activists suggested by http://www.peace365.org ? :
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from marekmzielinski(at)hotmail.co.uk -----
> > Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:57:55 +0000
> > From: marek zielinski
> > Subject: RE:LINK.
> >
> >
> > Dear Peace Activists,
> >
> > Would there be any obstacle to link our web-sites together
> >
> > since the aims of activities of our organizations lead the the same goal:
> >
> > GLOBAL PEACE FOREVER,
> >
> > Please send me a .jpg form of your organization's Logo
> >
> > In Peace
> >
> > Marek Zielinski
> >
> > Initiator of www.peace365.org
> >