| From: | Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 21 May 2008 02:15:32 -0700 (PDT) |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site |
Georges,
One of your previous posts mentioned the three
functions(and I'm going to paraphrase here) -
The group arrives at a decision when the consensus
reaches some pre-determined threshold.
I take this to mean 'a majority decision'.
Let's accept that it is arrived at after suitable
debate. I use the term 'suitable debate' to include
all the terminology you've previously expressed.
Where you say the group, 'which may be considered
as its own parliament', I used the term 'its own
government'.
When they came to a unanimous consensus, they
established a 'rule'. Whether they were bound by
that rule is irrelevant, they still established a
rule that would in another circumstance, with a
different group, become a law.
When we consider majority and minority in a
democracy, they are obviously in disagreement. The
will of the majority however, decides the 'rule'. A
minority in a stable democracy is duty bound to
accept the rule, decided according to the will of
the majority. Otherwise that democracy collapses and
the will of the strongest becomes the rule.
While your example group may have been able to
reach a unanimous consensus, on one issue and your
experiences of kibbutzism have shown examples of
unanimous consensus on some issues, I will not
accept that this is generally the case across the
countries of the world.
It does not conform to human nature, which has
self-interest high in the list of its traits.
Extreme altruism is the preserve of a few.
And now I see a flaw. Rather than edit the above,
I'll leave it so you can envision my train of
thought.
I have been guilty of equating majorities with
consensus.
Without going into detailed definitions, or
axioms, I equate DD as power vested in the people. I
consider that DDs, as I would envision them, would
reach decisions according to the will of the
majority.
Further, I would now class kibbutzism, as a
Deliberative Democracy, where decisions are based
upon consensus. More properly, since power is still
vested in the people, Direct Deliberative Democracy.
Another flaw.
I have also considered that democracy is based on
majorities, which would leave out kibbutzism. Yet
that does not seem right.
I therefore have to conclude that, in any
discussions on the nature of democracy, direct or
otherwise, it is necessary for each individual to
define what he/she means by the terms and for each
to accept a definition for the extent of the
discussion.
The definition would not have to be the same for
every discussion but should be clearly stated and
understood by all, if any discussion is to be
meaningful.
I have not devastated any part of the planet and
am not making billions starve.
I don't know if I can be convinced of your
assertions re meat-eating but you're welcome to give
it a shot.
Roy
Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
I must be even more stupid than I thought and did
not
succeed to convey a single of my ideas. You talk
about
some things, doubtless interesting, but having
nothing
to do with what I tried and failed to express.
I'll comment here and there inline without much hope
to make myself understood.
Georges.
--- ROY DAINE wrote:
The group, like a kibbutz, by functioning as amajority
direct democracy, was its own government. Anything
they agreed to, by majority, which was accepted by
the minority, became the rule. Regardless of the
size of the group.
I consider that any society is free to decide what
issues they consider to be the province of
vote. ie. Their government.================
G:
I never talked about "government" which denotes the
executive and has nothing to do with DD, dealing
exclusively with the legislative, which may, or may
not, have a whim to delegate parts of its power to
a "government".
In my example, the group, which may be considered as
its own parliament, reached, after deep and longish
inquiry, the unanimous consensus about animal
breeding
for human consumption, viz. that it is the most
noxious planetary polluter and the cause of
starvation
of billions. There was no question of diet, but
unanimous refusal to contribute to these global
disasters. No minority, no majority but freely
made individual choice shared by all. And certainly
no oppression, as everybody did what he found
himself
to be right.
Actually, important decisions are made in kibbutzim
unanimously. I saw also apparently surprising cases,
which might be called "oppression par minority".
For example, a kibbutz counted 20% religious
members,
who absolutely insisted on kashrut.
For 80% kashrut was a nuisance, but a bearable one.
The decision process considered not only how many
prefer, but how important it is for them. The
majority
accepted a bearable nuisance in order not to lose
the 20% who were good friends and would have to quit
the non-kosher kibbutz.
So, I skip your assertions about oppression, which,
albeit convincing as such, don't apply to our case
and pass to a statement, which disturbs me a bit.
================
The fact that you may be able to provide rigorous,
scientific proof that meat-eating is in some way
bad, for some parts, of some populations, is
irrelevant to me. I would still consider it
oppressive.
I would still not want to be part of that society.===============
G:
If devastating the planet and making billions starve
is irrelevant to you, it's this society that would
not want you.
Georges.
=================
Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every
issue that concerns you.