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

02115: Re: [WDDM] Re :Re: [WDDM] Re :[WDDM] What is the AIM of WDDM?

From: Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:23:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re :Re: [WDDM] Re :[WDDM] What is the AIM of WDDM?

Dear Antonio and WDDM,

I post this statement because it emphasizes the limited territory and jurisdiction of WDDM.

Antonio quotes than replies:

(Bruce quote) As I have repeatedly said WDDM does not make any policy for anybody or territory other than WDDM. WDDM is WDDM member "territory".

(ant)
Exactly so.  WDDM is WDDM members' "territory".  It is not the Territory
of  Direct Democracy Worldwide.


(Bruce notes) What logically follows is that the Jurisdiction of WDDM is only for the Territory of WDDM. Just as Italy only has the Jurisdiction of Italy. Italy cannot make decisions for Cuba.


Thus Antonio’s charge that WDDM is making decisions for the World is unfounded as WDDM does not have the Jurisdiction to do so. WDDM never claimed such jurisdiction.

Kind Regards,  Bruce


On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM, <Antonio Rossin> wrote:
Bruce,

Really, I think we are bringing ourold quarrel in a greater light, so late.
I'm going to reply to your replies within our posting.




Bruce Eggum wrote:

Dear Antonio, thank you for your posting. It explains a bit of your difficulty in grasping WDDM process. I respond to you within your posting.

(ant, previously)

Hi Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan,

Maybe your question has not been put clear enough.
Why should I agree or disagree with Bruce or anybody else?
IMO, Bruce is free to expose his POV, like every one else.
Maybe some one is in need of that - according with ones' own
local necessities, who knows?  Be myself in agreement or not,
it does not matter, as far as everyone is free to make proposals
and decide policies by 50+1 percent of the voting inhabitants in
one's own same territory -- and that is Democracy.

Antonio, The Organization [territory] of WDDM includes only it's members. This discussion of WDDM by WDDM members is to develop methods for WDDM [only WDDM] to bring INFORMATION about Direct Democracy to the World. I believe the "free press statues" allows us to provide information.

(ant)
This is the first time I hear about "free press statutes", maybe you
could explain this topic in a few simple words.

Anyway: I have nothing to oppose, about any discussion of WDDM by
WDDM members is to develop methods for WDDM [only WDDM]
to bring INFORMATION   about WDDM   to the World.
Do you understand the difference?

Where I disagree, it is to your point, in your quote, that the decisions made
by WDDM are thereby adjudged "Direct Democracy".  If this were true,
the immediate consequence would be that without the approval of WDDM,
no genuine grassroots bottom-up originated and decided policy could be
adjudged Direct Democracy.  If so, WDDM's would look like undemocratic
attitude.

In other words, WDDM cannot be the courts of Direct Democracy worldwide.
WDDM should only facilitate direct decisions made by beople in their own
territory, by showing them a list, a confrontation of what is passing through, and
make them decide more awarely about their topicals DIRECTLY --  not via
WDDM decisions ie. INDIRECTLY.



As I have repeatedly said WDDM does not make any policy for any body or territory other than WDDM. WDDM is WDDM member "territory".

(ant)
Exactly so.  WDDM is WDDM members' "territory".  It is not the Territory
of  Direct Democracy Worldwide.

(ant, previously)



Of course, Bruce does not grasp what I'm saying when I suggest
that WDDM is not the worldwide territory of Democracy, but
only that of a small list of  DD lovers and activists.  Therefore any
decision being voted by, say, eve4n the 100 percent of WDDM
list inhabitants cannot be binding onto Democracy Worldwide, thus
it looks IMO rather useless and a vaste of time.

(Bruce)


Antonio, no decision made here by WDDM members has never been meant to legislate for any other "territory". Indeed all we are deciding is how best to provide and present information for others about the merits of Direct Democracy.
(ant)
Bruce, I can't allow you to decide "how best to provide and present information
for others" as far as "the others" include myself.  That is, I like to decide directly
what is the best for me.  I suppose, "the others" too want to do so.

(Bruce)


WDDM also provides a space for members to ask questions and seek information. If someone states an answer or quotes a axion, they are providing information, not legislating. We also meet others who may even be from our "territory". This linking with others is very important. No single person in a "Territory" can accomplish much.

WDDM also provides the Axiom's which may be utilized by people which gives them the authority to take an Initiative to their "territory" asking to implement some type of DD in their own home territory.

(ant, previously)

Btw, I wonder whether any poll or votation in this list did even
produce any valuable results towards spreading Democracy .

(Bruce)


Antonio, we can not vote until we complete discussion, which you so handily interrupt.
(ant)
Bruce! Do you understand what you write?  Really?  What you
make me understand is, you are stating that it is your arguments
that complete discussion, whilst mine interrupt.
I wonder whether it this quite undemocratic principle, what your
"free press statutes" is about.  Or is it just freedom of speeech?
Touch wood...
What you write sounds often unbelievable to me, democratically
speaking, which makes your thinking way become unreliable.

(ant, previously)


It would be a mere top-down exercise, indeed, there where any
decision, to be consistent with Democracy, should come from the
territory grassroots bottom-up. Then, let our Reps and/or activists
in charge to decide how to implement that policy at the best.


(Bruce)


Antonio, The paragraph above is confusing. The governing body, representatives are the "top" and the "grassroots bottom up" are we the people who formed a bottom up organization [territory] here called WDDM. WDDM intention has always been to develop a campaign helping "territories" implement a more "direst democracy" in their own "territories".

No, we can not leave it up to the Reps to activate our Initiatives. They have had the opportunity and failed. That is why we grassroots people seek to implement our Initiatives, Proposals, directly. [bottom up]

(ant)
Your point of view sounds childish anarchism IMHO, something else
but Direct Democracy.   Please mind the Reps' function and meaning,
not the Reps name.
On this point, I maintain the following axiom:  Top-down policies with
a bottom-up origin are the only ones that function effectively
".

I guess, the Reps did not fail in activating Initiatives, even.  They failed
their democratic commitment simply because the initiatives they activate
have no bottom up-origin, ie no direct link with the te rritory. Period.

Otherwise, dear friend, tell me please how could any collective policy
be implemented without any public official in charge to do it, indeed,
without any collectivity's representative.


Regards,

antonio


Kind Regards, Bruce




On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Hi Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan,

Maybe your question has not been put clear enough.
Why should I agree or disagree with Bruce or anybody else?
IMO, Bruce is free to expose his POV, like every one else.
Maybe some one is in need of that - according with ones' own
local necessities, who knows?  Be myself in agreement or not,
it does not matter, as far as everyone is free to make proposals
and decide policies by 50+1 percent of the voting inhabitants in
one's own same territory -- and that is Democracy.

Of course, Bruce does not grasp what I'm saying when I suggest
that WDDM is not the worldwide territory of Democracy, but
only that of a small list of  DD lovers and activists.  Therefore any
decision being voted by, say, even the 100 percent of WDDM

list inhabitants cannot be binding onto Democracy Worldwide,
thus it looks IMO rather useless and a vaste of time.

Btw, I wonder whether any poll or votation in this list did even
produce any valuable results towards spreading Democracy .
It would be a mere top-down exercise, indeed, there where any
decision, to be consistent with Democracy, should come from the
territory grassroots bottom-up. Then, let our Reps and/or activists
in charge to decide how to implement that policy at the best.


Regards,

antonio


Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote
Dear WDDM members,
Bruce has not grasped what I have been trying to tell. To make things clear, I would like to know how many members feel the same way as Bruce. Keeping silent does not help anyone. I would urge Mirek to conduct a poll on this issue. Once for all the aim of WDDM should be decided.
Vijayaraghavan P



On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:26:50 -0500 wddm@world-wide-democracy.net wrote

Dear Vijayaraghavan P and WDDM,



First, we have determined the problem
is Representative Government power itself. That is why citizens want
power over their government, not simply to choose different people to
govern us.



Second, there will always be groups
which form who have similar beliefs. It makes no difference if you
call them groups or think tanks or party's, they will always be there trying to
influence to their way of thinking.



If your group [Party] wants to fight party's go
for it, but that is not the AIM of WDDM. WDDM chooses to develop
people power by putting the people in charge of their governments. If
you agree with the AIM of WDDM than join us.


Bruce
[personal opinion posted as a
citizen of the World and member of WDDM]
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA

vote



On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:

Dear Mr. Jiri Polak,
The proposed platform would indeed be another discussion channel but the discussion would be centered around developing an alternative to the concept of political parties.


It would be tailored to putting up candidates in elections independent of political parties and hence would have a focussed target group.

It can forma nidus for action on the ground.
The potential of the internet can be harnessed to the utmost advantage.


Sincerely,

Vijayaraghavan P


On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:01:48 +0200 wddm@world-wide-democracy.net wrote

Dear Mr.Padmanabhan,

to set up the platform you propose is surely
useful, but it can only become yet another discussion channel without any real
impact on concrete political systems. A transformation into true democracy must
be enforced in communes, villages, towns, regions and states by local
people.There is no other way.
Sincerely,Jiri Polak

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