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

02237: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

From: Michael Stansfield <pure_democracy(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

I can not speak for others, but I have experienced this same problem myself as mentioned:


"I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from
    WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break
    away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is
    perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic
    system. It goes around in circles."

The Direct Democracy movement knows very well what the problems of our Republican form of government are, but the problem is that the solutions given on how to actually achieve Direct Democracy tend to splinter the group.  Often times to question someones concept on direct democracy or how they would achieve it on rational terms is discouraged, because the view from the group is that we want to retain as much support as we can and concrete methods to achieve those goals tend to divide us.  Case in point.  The Direct Democracy Initiative process as spelled out through the Constitutional Amendment they are proposing to allow the public to submit proposals to the national government is run by a committee of the people who are sponsoring the amendment so once again the ideas that move forward are in some ways determined by the committee members, rather than by the general public and no consideration is given to states or local rights which divides the direct democracy movement between these who favor greater local control (as I do) verses those who favor more national laws.  Also speaking to religious folks who want to put a proposal down to say allow prayer is school or allow for the Bible in the class room, the other side feels that these types of proposals shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot because they violate the first amendment.  The problem is that now these same religious folks feel like what good is democracy if my ideas can't even be placed on the ballot.  These are just a small fraction of the, like myself, could work to develop a Direct Democracy constitution.  No limits.  Lets see how far the concept can go.  But it doesn't get much attention, because each person is going in their own direct democracy direction where the direction seems to mimic their own political philosophy: Conservation Direct Democracy, Liberal Direct Democracy, etc. If we truly had a concrete plan I have the forms we could print it out and start the signature gathering to put an initiative on the ballot in each state to Amend the constitution, of course not all states allow public initiatives, but at least it is a start.  We don't even have to go that far, why not put out one initiative in one state to amend the state constitution to create a direct democracy in that state and kick out the state legislature.  This is what a concrete practical idea would give us provided the average American agrees with the concrete solution given.  The authority has always been in our hands, but it is easier to complain than it is to think and research and problem solve and we each have busy lives.  Due to this the cause remains a cause waiting for the blue print and actual constructive progress.  PS if your hoping congress will actually take away some of their power to give it to the people you might have better odds playing the lottery.

Sincerely,

Michael Stansfield
Author: Learning How to Fly - Jefferson's challenge for the Dawn of Direct Democracy


From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:24:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

Good Morning, Lata

Regarding your message of Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:24:51 +0000 (GMT)

re: "'You say that we don't need a government but instead just
    need to solve problems "such as how to feed the community,
    how to provide adequate water...' etc.  Well, that's
    government ..."

Well said!!!

The balance of your argument is equally irrefutable.  I chose this brief excerpt simply as an example.


re: "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by somebody
    who does not know us, does not care, somebody who has their
    own agenda and career to worry about and a society which
    does not think we are smart enough or responsible enough to
    grasp the skills of government."

Well said!!!

And, again, merely a brief excerpt from an excellent observation.


This is the crux of the matter.  While I realize you said (on May 14th) ...

  "I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from
    WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break
    away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is
    perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic
    system. It goes around in circles." ...

I wonder if you would be willing to discuss the specific problem you identified here?

I read and understand the game you proposed (on May 14th), but:

1) at the moment it does not (so far as I know) exist,

2) participation would be limited to those with the equipment and
  ability to play the game (which is not universal), and

3) it is at least one level removed from human interaction.

The little bit of your material I've been privileged to read tells me you are uncommonly thoughtful.  Could we exchange some ideas on representative government, either privately or in this forum?

Fred Gohlke
fredgohlke(at)verizon.net


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