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

02174: Re: [WDDM] Re: A clean slate

From: Lata Gouveia <latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:30:51 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: A clean slate

RE: "A clean slate"
From the few responses I did not request, it is interesting to to note that only one actually engaged the content. The others pressed "re-boot" and tried to point me towards something they know.
My original "clean slate" comment was not born out of ignorance about the Swiss example or the history of referendums (whether in California or anywhere else). I studied politics for a long time, including at post-grad level. I understand the method.

What I was saying is that the method is flawed. If you want to bring DD about in a way that does not just become the next natural step in dialetics (and therefore just as far away from DD as anything we've achieved so far), shadowing or even engaging with the existing structures will invariably defeat you... by the very nature of procedure. HOW is becoming more important than WHAT.

The way we think about the political process and its very definition is our greatest obstacle,not the fact that the rest of the world does not know as much as you do. So when even a lose organization such as this WDDM becomes a vehicle for you to show off your supposed knowledge and for my own ego to raise its ugly head (notice my need to defend myself in the second paragraph) then it becomes pointless.

We're missing the point, we are failing to inspire, we are lecturing each other as if we were each other's captive audience. Lets not forget that people are free to ignore us. You can send me all the reading lists you want... if I'm not welcome, inspired by you... able to contribute my own way, you're going to fail. Or maybe you can create a small ghetto that lives in your version of Direct Democracy... all 80 of you.

Lata Gouveia



--- On Fri, 22/5/09, Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au> wrote:

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: A clean slate
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Cc: worldcit(at)googlegroups.com, "Garry Davis" <worldlaw(at)globalnetisp.net>, "International SP Organization" <simpolicies-general(at)yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, 22 May, 2009, 8:50 AM

Dear Parrhesia,


Working examples  (as distinct from theoretical planning)
of more democratic social structures include
•  Antonio Rossin's) informed early parenting workshops
based on www.flexible-learning.org ;
• the  www.sociocracy.org examples ;  and
• several types of nested / cross-liaising networks of stakeholders
coordinating levels and inter-related fields of management /
control discussed by Shann Turnbull in many writings including

–    Doug 
====        responding to: –

Subject: RE: [WDDM] Re: A clean slate
Date: 15 May 2009 7:29:03 PM
Cc:   wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Reply-To:   wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
It is not the parties that make the system, it's the system that makes the parties. The very first thing a party requires is representatives who obviously have a public profile and individual identity.
 
It is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. How many democracies exist in this world? How many of them are free from corruption and intrigue? How many of them elect representatives that mirror the will of the people? We have been trying to figure out how to elect the right person for centuries, but we fail to see that electing someone to a position of power changes that person. Compound this with the time tested fact that those who seek power are those who you would least like to succeed in their endeavor.

Representative democracy requires the centralization of power. It quickly turns political, and there is no way around this.

Representative democracy is dead. Direct democracy will replace it, and mankind will finally be free of the need to judge the virtue of every official… a task which is impossible.

I have never come across a candidate who I actually agreed with on a vast majority of the issues. It is hard enough to judge the issues fairly, but to judge a person… that is by far the harder task.

To pretend that the officials in any country possess a level of judgment that exceeds that of the common masses is to ignore completely the overwhelming consensus of history. It is a form of bigotry and elitism which those in power promote ceaselessly.

A free society needs few laws. Any departure from liberty must be embarked upon with careful deliberation, only taking root when the public is overwhelmingly in favor of the restriction.

To say, in America, we have the right to bear arms is to stand blindly behind a sentence, missing the point entirely. We preserve the right to bear arms, as a free people, but we limit that right. If you ask the average person whether a person should be able to own a missile for personal use, they will say… “Um… no”. Regardless of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the will of the public limits this to a reasonable level.

The Bill of Rights is only sacred in the context of a government which seeks always its own aggrandizement and power. This is a relic of representative democracy. In government by representation, the government becomes a body apart from the people, even going so far as to claim a sort of ownership over those who are governed. In a direct democracy, the only power you have to fear is the unanimous will of your countrymen.

If 90% of them say, no Apache helicopter for you… you don’t get one. I may disagree with the rule, but I cannot disagree that a person must conform to the rules of the society in which he or she lives, regardless of any claim to “natural rights”.

But what happens when we change from government as a consensus of those governed to a model where 51% of an elite minority can direct the daily lives of the whole citizenry. We get what you see in every government around the world. The faces and names change, but the centralization of power in every country leaves destruction and tyranny in its wake.

America has military bases in over 100 countries around the world. If the government ever asked for the consent of the people, the people would say, “No. That’s unreasonable.” However, no representative wants to fight the military industrial complex, or social security, or the welfare state, or corporate welfare, or the drug war… and so these programs and restrictions endure… far past the point where a reasonable person would endorse.

Secret Ballots
Representatives always vote in public, which is necessary for a representative democracy, but it perverts society. The values we espouse in public will always be slightly different than the way we would vote in private, where our personal values direct our assent.

A congressman may be against the war on drugs, and that mission may only have a popular level of support in the range of 30-50%, but it is still there. Half of our prison population is still composed of those who society has cast out for their lifestyle, even if the public would vote to release them tomorrow.

You can’t get past the flaws of a representation system without abandoning representation.

Direct democracy is the future. Representative democracy was a compromise, owing to the fact that a direct democracy would have been a logistical nightmare. Now, in this time, in this day and age, it is time to cast off our customary institutions in favor of something better. Dismantling representation is required for a stable, free society.
 
If we make decisions based on whether or not "I like this guy", based on the candidate's personality, ethnic background, political affiliation (party) and appearance, we are failing...
 
I find it very hard to vote for a person. I vote for liberty… freedom. I vote for holding people accountable for their actions. I vote for a system of retirement that doesn’t rob from the young to buy votes for those in power. I vote for a safety net that serves those in need, according to my own values. I vote for an end to corruption. But…

It does not matter how I vote. Representatives will vote in their own self interest. The recent bailout bill resulted in a flood of phone calls and emails from the public to elected representatives. These calls were overwhelmingly against any bailout package… and the bailout package initially failed. These calls were as much as 100-to-1 against, and yet, after inducements for swing voters were added to “sweeten” the deal, it finally passed.

Even the president of AIG stated that he thought the company should have been allowed to fail, but representatives voted to increase their own spending pool and power base. Based on America 1921-1922, 1929-1945, 1992-present… Japan 1921-1927, 1980-1988, these bailouts can be shown to cripple an economy. A majority of economists - opposed to the bailout. A majority of the public - opposed to the bailout. Congress… passed the bailout.

Representative systems always create this effect. If you are surprised, you shouldn’t be commenting on anything political until you read some history.

Answer:
Liberty. Any limits to liberty must be supported by a vast majority of those governed. All votes must be by secret ballot, with only consensus having the ability to rob any man of that liberty. Consensus must be defined as something close to a 100% vote. Every percentage we drop from that number must accompany the understanding that those people are being compelled by society to act against their will or to limit their actions to those that society has not banned. This is very possible if the minority that is opposed is small. If the minority is of sufficient size, the unintended consequences of this law or regulation will QUICKLY outstrip the benefits that society believe could be achieved by the new rule.

Government by consensus is not perfect, but it has the greatest chance of achieving what our founders intended for our country… when they weren’t promoting their own agendas.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you are interested in actual direct democracy… I’m doing it. I’ve targeted three groups:
1.       One religious minority group
2.       One gun rights group
3.       One college student group

I am preparing to provide each of these groups with an actual voting system, where they can vote directly on any issue they are interested in. I will show them how the country would look if each of the other groups had control of congress.

With a simple majority rule, these three groups will impose a societal structure that interferes with the liberties of the other two. At a 80% majority rule, the laws generated by these three groups will be essentially identical. This will show these three groups why majortarian democracies always lead to subtle tyrannies. Conversely, it will show these groups that the laws that benefit society have overwhelming support.

From there, I will embark on teaching these groups Austrian economics, showing how our boom-bust cycle is a direct result of our banking system its collusion with government. With their support, I am going to hit up Mr. Bill Gates for funding to push this over the top. If you wish to debate how to fix representative government, then I support the effort, although history doesn’t provide much promise for this approach.

If you wish to support a simple majority rule, I cannot give my blessing. Majority rule is oppressive, and it conflicts with liberty to such a level that I can never again wave that banner. If you wish to get involved, email.

I am building a network of people, each with a very small task. For example, one person has the task of convincing Paul Krugman to write an intelligent rebuttal to this system of government. One person is in charge of recruiting Ron Paul, and another is managing the project plan. There are hundreds of other tasks, but the resource pool to draw upon is vast.

I welcome all friends of Liberty, especially if you have read Austrian business cycle theory. If you haven’t… stop now… read it. Go to youtube… peter Schiff was right… look it up. The Austrians predicted the great depression and have a theory to explain it. They predicted the dot-com bubble. They predicted stagflation in the 70’s. In fact, when you find the right theory, you have found the truth. Observed fact always lines up squarely with the truth, and the Keynesians have been wrong at every step. They told us the stock market was at a permanently high plateau… in 1929 and in 1999. They were wrong. The Keynesians told us home prices never go down… they were wrong. Those who are duped into believing this trash have doomed entire countries to decades of stagnation, turmoil and strife. In contrast, the Austrians have been right at every turn, and even if you don’t understand the theory, you must acknowledge that the current theories embraced by our government are fundamentally broken.

Think, then act. If you are ready for action, drop me a line. I’m recruiting. After this mail, I will be on to the next pro-reform group to gather support.

Parrhesia


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