Dear All, The following statement by Jim Powell simplifies our understanding of how DD can work- "My guess is that Switzerland has succeeded because decisions are made by the voters which will focus on family values".
When voters are focussed on family values invariably they are focussed on peace. This may be the reason why DD came to be established in Switzerland in the first place. Reasons based on ideologies, economics and politics only complicate matters.
When most people believe that preserving the peace and well-being of individual families is more important than increasing the wealth of the nation through economic activity then, through appropriate legislation, they would be putting the brake on carbon emissions and global warming. An example of how focus on the family has global implications.
PVR
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:15:31 0200 wddm@world-wide-democracy.net wrote Hi All,
I believe that the only Direct Democracy in action at all levels in a country is Switzerland.
The system seems to work very well, they have avoided wars, have a good quality of life and standard of living.
These are my impressions an opinions formed from the information I have gathered.
Should we not make Switzerland our model and engage with their Government and particularly Foreign Affairs for assistance and guidance?
My guess is that Switzerland has succeeded because decisions are made by the voters which will focus on family values.
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