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

01733: Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 27 Mar 2008 04:53:12 -0000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD

Martin,
I think that what you want to say is that the public would accept change in only small increments. You are right and to say that the Swiss System is to be aimed at is also fine since it is easily understandable and a practical reality.

But replication of that system in other countries would be possible only if that system is understood in its entirety including how it came into being and how it is being sustained. Hence we need to define and delineate the strategy to make it into a reality.

PVR



On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:24:47 +1030 wddm@world-wide-democracy.net wrote

PVR, I find what you say very clear, and makes a lot of sense, one thing
that is clear is it seems impossible to find an argued position for WDDM, but
another thing that is certain,is the public will only except limit change, and
the Swiss System would present that, plus it is a system in operation.
Martin

----- Original Message -----
From:
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:16
AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Getting the whole
picture about DD
Dear All,Mirek wrote -"....the logical conclusion seems
to be that if we want to achieve a just society (democracy), we have no chance
to do so within the current money system designed to benefit only a small
segment of the society" "Shouldn't we (the DD promoters, WDDM, ...) then
pay also some (more, a lot of) attention to the reform of the money system???
We should indeed.": This can be considered in another manner.
If we are able to achieve a just and peaceful society through DD then the
current money system will, as a consequence, be
replaced through the altered social dynamics with a more people
friendly system. The link below gives an article on this matter and a
discussion on that: http://www.myverdict.net/articles/intarticle.php?article
the first requirement for achieving a just and peaceful society (through
DD) would be that most, if not all, people should believe in and aspire for
it. Only then would DD itself become a reality in the first place.
For this being focused on peace is a basic necessity. It is needless to
say that the proponents of DD should themselves be focused on peace. Otherwise
we will be criticizing each other just for the sake of it and be engaged
in endless discussions. QUOTE of Shadow ParliamentThree
issues seem essential for starting to move towards the
DD:1.Getting a Shadow Parliament within the Particracy.2.Establish a
logistic 3 Functions
support:
1.Initiative (supporting individual
proposals)
2.Debate (consensus
building)
3.Decision (upon a consensus threshold; no snapshot vote) 3.Propound
Sincerity, which appears to be the critical condition of
DD.UNQUOTEGeorges' idea is fine but he fails to appreciate
that his logistic 3 functions support has also been suggested by
others in different forms. Nicole's Enitiative and Roy Daine's My
Verdict together provide the logistic 3 functions support proposed by
Georges. To propound sincerity is critical not only for the success of
DD but to usher DD in the first place. Only when we try
to appreciate each other's point of view can we hope to usher in a system
that would be sensitive to the freedom and dignity of each
individual.The word 'Definition' means (as per Oxford
Dictionary) - "a statement of the exact meaning of a word or the
nature or scope of something". We try to define DD to clarify its scope.
Since DD has a crucial economic implication as mentioned above, I
would modify the suggested integrated definition as - "DD is a
socio-politico-economic structure wherein sovereignty is vested directly in
the people without the intermediary domination of any political party and who
in exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination determine their
own governance through the methods of Initiative, Binding Referendum &
Recall." We have several worthwhile suggestions for ushering in
DD but for success we need to allow integration of ideas put forth from
various points of view. There is no room for oneupmanship here. We have a
democratic way of deciding things and we should utilize it.PVR


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