RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

--- ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com> wrote:

>   On the WDDM site alone there are six alternative
> definitions of DD -
>
>   1.   DD is Initiative and Binding Referendum and
> Recalls
>   2.   DD is a socio-political structure
> concentrating the Legislation directly and
> exclusively in the hands of people
>   3.   DD is the system currently used in
> Switzerland
>   4.   DD recognises that the Voters are the
> employers and Politicians are the employees
>   5,   Direct democracy - Wherein sovereignty is
> vested directly in the people, who, in exercise of
> their inalienable right to self-determination and
> under universal suffrage, determine the structure
> and functioning of their own governance.
>   6.   Direct Democracy is where the people have a
> say in governance directly without the intermediary
> of one or more political parties
================
G:
True, WDDM does not know what it's talking about.
For the simple reason that DD is too general to admit
an intensional definition.
see "DEFINITIONS" in

http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/definitions.html

Extensional definition enumerates Athens and Kibbutzim
as sharing the 3 function structure: 1.Initiative,
2.Consensus building Debate and 3.Resolution upon
consensus reaching a threshold.
================
>   Now in your opinion Georges, DD = Kibbutzism.
================
G:
It's not my "opinion", but the rigorous extensional
definition, after eliminating Athens as elitary DD,
or Oligarchy.
===============
>   That makes seven definitions. And that's from just
> one site. From just seven people.
==============
G:
Six blablablas and one rigorous extensional
definition.
===============
>   With regards to the site mentioned. I said it was
> not convincing. I did not infer a compliment and I
> made no attempt to criticise. I merely said it was
> not convincing.
=================
G:
You did not understand. I felt it as a compliment
that my essay does not convince YOU.
=================
>   I see the governance of Israel is not based on
> kibbutzism.
=================
G:
Nor is the governance of Tombuctu.
It's the governance of the Kibbutzim that is
structured as DD.
================
>   I have just perused wikipedia's entry on
> kibbutzism. I would not consider kibbutzism an
> outstanding success. I'm glad I wasn't raised in
> such a system.
================
G:
One can see that you were not. And the depth of your
Wikipedia knowledge and science is impressing.
My 10 years experience of life and problems of
Kibbutzim don't count in comparison.

I had to quit it for reasons irrelevant to the present
context. Since then I live as an alien among cruel,
stupid predators.
================
>   'My version' of DD by the way, is no 5.
>
>   Now Georges, you're free to disagree.
================
G:
I can neither agree, nor disagree, as your Nr 5,
being intensional, is neither right nor wrong, neither
true nor false, but simply a meaningless chain of
characters.
(see above).

Ships passing in the night. We'd better leave it at
that.

Georges.
================