Hi Lata,
Let us separate out the moral and ethical issues from the Direct
Democracy issues.
A petition alert the population and will raise a referendum or initiative.
That is Direct Democracy.
That the Swiss have abused their position with particular reference
to money laundering is we documented.
Do not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. The
baby is an efficient system. The bathwater is the application
Regards
Jim Powell
From: Lata Gouveia
[latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 16 Oct 2009 12:16 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Again,
I must agree with Antonio.
Also, someone was talking about Switzerland as if it were an incredible example
of DD.
As far as I understand it, in Switzerland, people don't get involved with
initiative or debate, the only power they have is to veto something (or recall
it or whatever you want to call it)
You can call it what you want, but without participation, without grass roots
initiative, without individual responsibility, for me, it is as democratic as
representative democracy, just another example of the missuse of the word.
Look at Switzerland carefully. The only time citizens are compelled to
participate is when it hits their individual material interests. Hence their
stance on immigration, finance, etc. One of the wealthiest and yet most
xenophobic countries in the world, despite their multi-cultural make up. They
are more materially xenophobic than racially xenophobic. No problem with taking
in Millions of dollars of drug money, of African dictator money, of arms
dealing money. The result of that system is that it encourages the citizens to
act only in defense of their own material well being without any sense of
responsibility or engagement with the world. As if that was the entire scope
and purpose of government, to protect our wallets.
Being selfish and turning a blind eye to the effects of what keeps you rich is
not what I call a virtue.
Being able to veto something when it hits you in the wallet whilst not
participating in the political process is not what I would call a democracy.
Switzerland is not what I would call a successful example of Direct Democracy.
It depends on your conception of success.
But a success that disconnects us from the very real struggles and hardships of
our fellow men, a success that maintains a policy of isolationism based on
giving criminals and dictators financial immunity, a success that,
historically, bases its so called neutrality on dealing with the winning side
with total disregard for any sense of ethics, is no success at all, in my book.
This is my opinion on the matter.
From: Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, 15 October, 2009 22:55:17
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
Hi
I am sorry to tell you that the same problem exist even in western coutries
rulled by different kinds of representant democracies but probably not as
open and widespread as in Iran.
As an example I saw a documentary film about the way Pazolini was killed
in Italy because of his political activity and opinions paid by people in
power.
I do not remember details but as I remember media gave sexual affairs as
the motivation for the murder instead of the real motivation.
Specially after 11th Septembe and world trade center catastrophy western
societies politicall atmospher has changed gradually more and more and is
closing to looks like Iran and other dictator countries.
So I think it is not only you who are progressing toward direct democracy
but also people in power are progressing in their dictatorship.
Hi Hamid
let's agree, it is not my individual progress toward democracy that matters.
What matters, it is the people who support Direct Democracy - meant as the
capacity of taking political responsability upon themselves.
Sad to say, these people - their majority - instead of supporting DD, do really
support those in power and their dictatorship.
How could we turn dictatorship into democracy if the people's (democratic,
i.e.,
50+1 voters %) support dictatorship?
Therefore I
think it is naive to try to change the society only by changing people if you
do not even fight against those who has interest to protect their priviledges
in non democratic political systems.
Again: those in power are empowered to protect their privileges thanks to
the spport of the democratic majority of people.
Of course how the resources
should be divided between changing people
and changing existing political system can be different in different countries.
Regards
Hamid
Regards,
antonio
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:40:23 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid,
the problem you expose portraits the reality, as far as I can see.
Agreed: in substance, it looks like performing political propaganda,
which attitude in some countries would be quite suicidal. Therefore,
the information should be spread indirectly: it should gain momentum
in countries where freedom of speech, and free time, are greater.
Yet this does not happen, still, here in western countries. I've found
hard opposition - even in this list - whenever I presented dialectical
confrontation as a chance of conflict resolution and peace, among
people who consider dialectics as a destructive sort of separation.
To fix the resistence of such narrow-minded people, here in western
countries, I am champaigning Primary Prevention of Drugs Addiction,
as a Trojan Horse for the family educational model suitable for
Democracy, since both models - that for democracy and that fot drugs
prevention coincide.
What shall I tell you, more? I am woking out this champaign since
four decades, but I am reaching some results, say, the last five years
only. I can count the friends who help me on the fingers of one
hand.
(Maybe they are some more, but not so many... ;-) )
Cheers,
antonio
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
Hi
The problem is that you have no possibility to inform and cure people
in colonized countries like Iran. Many times when
you try to inform others it means that youare risking death
penalty or serious punishment by politicians in power.
In these kind of societies everything is controlled by politicians.
Censurship, fear and hunger make it impossible to change
people. Hungry people has only time to run for money and food and nothing else.
They know if they are not politically correct (Think as authorities like)
they take big risks for their life and carriar.
People most of the time know much more than we beleive by they don´t dare
to tell what they know.
In these kind of societies you should fight the authorities first befor
you can get a chance to change people.
This is the cause of many blody revoulutions instead of eveolution.
Regard
Hamid
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:18:02 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
It is not possible to change to direct democracy in a society
made of mentally and physically sick people.
(ant)
Agreed. However, it is possible to inquiry for :
- what the mental (and physical) is,
- how it is propagated by people to people through
generations,
- whether it could be possibly prevented
( http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace,com/rossin08.htm
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/common/Antonio.Lucknow.ppt
)
and take action subsequently
Otherwise, we keep on dealing with a matter whose causative origins
we do not know, that is blindly. Knowledge is mandatory, before all.
May I remember that Knowledge means (capacity of) Control ?
That is, make the people know, and the people will control.
Otherwise, without knowledge, no control is possible. I wonder how
we (active responsible) could pretend Direct Democracy to be up,
provided that DD means "control by the people".
(which does not prevent the active responsible people to spend
as much resources as possible to inform the public locally and
contrast the corrupted - in both Iran and Italy, under suitable i.e.
right proportions respectively)
Regards,
antonio
It is not neither possible to change to direct
democray in a society controlled by corrupt, mentally and
physically sick politicians.
The question is not to choose between changing people or politicians but
changing both to develope to succeed.
Before changing anything we probably must begin by analyzing social
situation in the actual society. After that we should
plan and invest in right proportions depended on social
situation in both parts so hpefully succeed to develope to direct
democracy.
In countries like Iran probably you should use more resources to get rid of
corrupt government which often works for colonial powers.
Ira countries like Italy probably your should use more resources to inform and
change people.
Regards
Hamid
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
Sorry. Today's society does not. The sad evidence
is, if society
would reward these values fairly, there would be no need of
improving democracy, and our discussions would be
nonsensical.
You imply a relationship between democracy (or the governing
system in general) and the reward of virtue in society. What, in your
opinion, is this relationship?
IMHO, every society (as well as every governing system including
the so-called democracies) rewards individual behavious. Rewarded
individual behaviours become collective-social behaviours soon, and
so society builds up itself.
The health of society depends on this rewarding process, whether it
does or does not allow insane behaviours be rewarded in its inside.
Are you saying that the goal of improving democracy is to
cause this sort of society?
I'm saying, if our society suffers from insanity - whose symptoms are
drugs, the eco disaster, wars, mental ilnessess and so on - our social
arrangement shall be inproved. Let's give our social arrangement the
name "Democracy".
Therefore, if this sort of society already exists, then the
focus on democracy is redundant or of diminished necessity?
Therefore, if our social arrangement is fit to social requirements - and
does not produce any symmptom of insanity, there is no problem here,
and let us continue the discussions about democracy in the academe.
Or, are you saying that there is a causal relationship
between the two? If so, which way would you say it runs?
Imho, society i.e. the people do reward insane behawiours because
they suffer since childhood from too less critical thinking and too much
passive dependence on the authority's consent.
antonio
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people
must
change in advance. I laugh in the face of the
contributors
of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.
You are suggesting that causation runs from good people to
good government. I require evidence here, rather than conjecture. What I see in
case after case is that causality tends to runs from good social framework to
socially advantageous value norms.
I would point to the drastic social change that communism
caused in Romania, Ukraine, and China. A political system changed the character
of the people in these societies in a single generation. There is a strong
tendency in this case to run from bad social reward system to anti-social
behaviors.
Are you sure?
I do not see any change in tha character of people there,
provided that people underwent rather passively to a political
system before, and underwent the same passively to a different
political system later. Did it the characher of the people change
substantially? I think it did not. It is the ruling system that
changed over them, not because of the responsible wish of the
people inside, but because of some foreign forces working over
the people from the people's outside.
Also, note views on women in different countries.
Women never achieve social equality until after they are
granted
political equality, and a change in the political status of women is
the single best indicator of when they will begin, historically to be
viewed as equals in mainstream society.
To obtain political equality, women had to struggle very
hard,
in the past centuries, after the French revolution, methinks.
No one granted them any gender parity spontaneously, i.e.,
without being compelled by women to do it, here in the West.
I would also point to religion. In states where religion is
heavily involved, entire cultures tend to develop according to the particular
dogmas embraced by the state, rather than the underlying religion. For example,
Catholicism and Islam have played out very differently in times and places
where they have had differing degrees of collusion with the "official"
government.
Ok., but people behave almost the same under different
dogmas,
as far as I can see. Very simply, they undergo.
However, fundamentalist people do not accept any degree of
freedom from the religious dogmas of their religions, and their
religious leaders have a good hand in dominating them - see
for instance some Islamic countries. In the West vice versa, the
freedom degree from fundamentalistic dogmas is greater, and it
parallels the degree of gender parity. I would ascribe the merit
of this democratic success to women's past struggles for a state
of social parity.
The rules of government have a LARGE impact on our value
systems... such as how we feel about sex, drugs, violence, and theft. Think of
the sociopolitical changes that accompany a welfare state... involuntary
conscription... censorship... government controlled schooling.
In short, a type of government creates a type of citizen. If
society does not reward honesty, integrity, thrift, labor, and commitment, then
these values will be in short supply.
Sorry. Today's society does not. The sad evidence is,
if society
would reward these values fairly, there would be no need of
improving democracy, and our discussions would be nonsensical.
In real life, bureaucracy acts as a shield against the good
intentions and kind nature of citizens. It makes decisions on our behalf,
claiming to be by our will... and they are important decisions, and sometimes
they are bad decisions. It makes us think that we are responsible for this
mess... this political garbage masquerading as the public conscience.
My humble two-cents on this topic are free at:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin11.htm
Comments welcome.
Regards, antonio
Populism, Imperialism, Torture, Lying and WAR... in our
name!
This DAMNED government has duped us into believing that all
these mistakes are a result of our nature. They are a result of politics, and
the political process.
The simple majority rule pits us against each other and puts
us on little teams. We ride into war on our elephants and asses, and rather
than joust, we talk past one another with platitudes like, "Politics
is compromise", "Change must be slow", "There will always
be war".
The world is changing. It is time to roll with it.
A direct democracy will demand more of an individual, and it
will create the type of individual that we keep proposing as a
precondition of it's inception.
As for Implicit/Explicit...
If I asked WDDM to send a representative to Parrhesia Group,
and you sent one...
Would that implicitly give the representative you sent the
ability to enter into binding agreements in your name?
Could this representative sign a contract in your name
allowing me to garnish your wages for some project he finds fanciful?
People at the outset of this country never gave up the right
to vote directly on the terms of the US Constitution. They were never asked.
The US Constitution is a hatchet to the skull of liberty. It was a recreation
of parliament... with elections stirred in.
It's "ingenious" checks and balances are subvurted
by a system that invites vote pooling, and thus political parties... and thus
Republican presidents appoint judges friendly to the republican agenda
and ditto for democrats... And it becomes two parties, instead of three
branches... and one party is always "in power".
It must be explicit, because politics is corrupt. If you
allow a politician to have "implied powers" (I hate you, Hamilton)
they get very creative with the idea.
A man was fined for selling his corn for lower
than the federally mandated price, justified by the interstate commerce clause.
The man grew and sold the corn in a single state... and yet the interstate
commerce cause IMPLIED that the government could intervene... BECAUSE
(mix in political creativity and implied powers... AND)
If the man was NOT selling the crop locally, then it could
have been released into interstate commerce... and therefore, price controls
were valid, even if no state lines were crossed... because it COULD have been
crossed if the farmer hadn't hoarded the corn in the local market.
Also... California's pot legalization!!! Invalid...
beeeeecause... The interstate commerce clause. Creative. (The Marijuana Tax Act
was similarly creative - sinister).
And then there's Alexander Hamilton. He was ALL about
implied powers. We should learn from his mistakes and NEVER repeat them.
If we properly respect the authority and danger that
government represents, then we cannot accept implied power doctrine. It is
easily abused.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Joseph,
I'm going to insert some comments to your reply.
Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician,
any business leader,
any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility about Direct
Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will laugh in your
face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why? "Because
people
are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be incredibly naive
to think otherwise"
Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people must
change in advance. I laugh in the face of the contributors
of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.
So, when poll people in positions of power, they are of the
opinion that representation is a necessity. Okay. If you ask a teacher
about the necessity of teachers, I assume you would get similar results... for
similar reasons. I do not think you are trying to use that as a supporting
argument, but rather as in introduction into the theme that the people are not
informed enough to govern themselves.
Just so. Today's teaching - and most of all earliest
teaching,
i.e. parenting - are aimed to grow-up "Yes-Men" people.
No wonder then, if these people will need of some one whom
they say "Yes" to, and undergo. Therefore, teaching and
parenting must be revised, if we wanted the new generation
to become fit to perform DD.
And, "Educate your child and you'll educate yourself," the
old sage said.
I'll buy that, as long as you have proof.
Compare citizen and Congressionally passed
legislation. Is the quality higher on the latter? Show me
the examples. There is a VAST body of such evidence to inspect.
Or is it that people do not WANT to govern themselves, as
Antonio said,
Very simply, average people do not want to take any
political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
requirement of Democracy.
Point to the survey in an initiative/referendum state where
the citizens want to revoke this privilege. Point to the survey of Swiss
citizens who wish to give up the same.
I have been looking in earnest for examples of where a
citizenry explicitly gave up their right to have a direct say in their government.
From what I have studied, this seems like a chimera. I continue to search, but
without a clue, I don't think I can find it. Perhaps someone here can
help.
Why, "explicitly"?
"Implicitly" is more than enough. I don't believe you'll even
get the people to discuss this point explicitly, or else make it
become an item of their Reps' political agenda.
On what evidence do we base our claims that these two
propositions are correct?
The citizens are unable to govern themselves.
The citizens do not wish to govern themselves.
"The people are too stupid or lazy to govern
themselves"
The evidence is, Direct Democracy is down , there where
Representative Democracy is up
We know why this is a beneficial doctrine for a government
to promote. We know we were inundated with this during our public education. We
know that people other than ourselves will believe in the silliest notions...
but we are inoculated, individually wiser than the masses we judge. We are
better. We are vain. We are hubristic.
We are those who Socrates and John Stuart Mill spoke of. We
are never wrong, because the older we are, the more harm it causes to our pride
to admit to a 10, 30, or 50 year mistake in judgement.
There is no issue where clarity of discussion is more
essential than in the responsible use of force. Government is force,
legitimated by some base of overwhelming power. Democracy places that
legitimacy in the hands of the people.
The first specific question about government is the question
of representation. For that reason, I (seemingly incessantly, right?) press
this issue. Have we honestly evaluated a true direct democracy, or did we jump
past it to the admittedly more interesting issue of solving the problems with
representation? The whole WDDM movement could be viewed as a campaign to solve
some of the issues with representation, but have we gotten ahead of where
reason would logically direct us...
Should the first question of a democracy not be a poll of
the public to decide the question of representation?
Wrong question (see above.)
If you were able to obtain a really decisive poll to decide
the question of representation, this would mean that DD
is already up. Vice versa, if DD were down, as it is, you
won't obtain such a poll even.
And so on. I stop here, for the time being
Regards, antonio
A public tasked honestly with the formation of a government
will have to answer this and other questions before the public or
anyone can design a democratic government to serve them. That is a
requirement of any system that claims to be a democracy. We skipped this
in America. We consolidated power and then made other decisions by proxy, on a
false foundation. This new power quickly validated ITSELF, voting that
representation was a valid _expression_ of the public will. These decisions were
the product of self interest, because they could not have been the result of a
devotion to philosophy, a commitment to democracy, or the available evidence.
In the beginning, do we really assume that the people would
have given up their right to vote on war, which ravaged every country they
labored to escape? Do we believe that they would trust this government, coming
from lands led by leaders with little interest in the serfs they controlled?
Would they have given up this right if asked directly?
No. It was taken, as were all other democratic rights when
representation was not validated explicitly by the governed. The omission of a
referendum process at the creation of the union is proof positive that this
government was not an _expression_ of the public will... even the white male
landowning public will, which is a low bar for legitimacy indeed.
233 years later, we defend the decisions of the
representatives of white, middle and upper class males. But why?
We, the people, are afflicted with the tendency to stick to
our positions once they are publicly stated. We are also susceptible to
propaganda and conditioning. Combine with these tendencies a mass media
and endless repetition, we begin to understand why the correct information
sometimes takes a long time to surface. Geocentricism, witch hunts,
alchemy, theories of gods on mountaintops throwing lightning and
the luminiferous ether... not to mention modern macroeconomics and the healing
power of magnets.
Yes, there are benefits to representation, in theory and
practice. This is a supportable position. By focusing on this side of the
issue, it is easy to judge in favor of its existence.
We do not sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of harm that
representation causes, harm that can only partially be mitigated by selecting
the correct people for the job. We must be the United People of America, apart
from artificial institutions and princedoms. We must be held completely
accountable for the decisions of our government, and we cannot, unless we are
the same.
Direct democracy is not perfect. "One man, one
vote" is not a bulletproof concept, but it is the best of the available
choices.
I have been in favor of representation for over 20 years. I
didn't change my mind until I actually started talking to people about their
views of society. I spoke to hundreds of people, a few every day,
venturing from my apartment in Seattle to simply discuss politics with
different people at Seattle Centre.
Very slowly, I realized that my comparative advantages in
decision making were illusory. Perhaps I underestimated the masses because
it fed my ego. Perhaps I had just seen SO many news reports and political
commentaries that I began to see people through the their skewed lens...
caricatures of reality. It is more than likely both reasons that supported
my misconceptions.
I would trust a vast majority of the people I
have spoken with to vote on issues, which they express to me in very
plain terms. Sometimes these terms are crude and sometimes they are
different than mine, but that's okay.I may not agree with a person, but this is
their country, too. We must decide together how to progress, and I would rather
collaborate directly than through some convoluted and corruptible process. It
is to everyone's benefit if this process is honest and transparent... simple
and efficient. We sacrifice all four of these benefits to some degree with
representation. We must be sure it is worth the sacrifice.
When I talk to these same people about candidates, the
conversation is sometimes about political ideas and understanding of the
issues, but often it takes a back seat to other considerations.
Many times, a desire for change is evident, but not a direction. Could it
be that the actual changes we long for are impossible, so we settle for picking
a team that will let us feel we have some control over a system that no one
controls... a system out of control?
In all, I find that these "stupid" people know far
more about the issues than they know about the candidates they are
electing. It is a far easier task to research an issue than it is
to correctly judge the character of a man who seeks power.
If people are easily duped and lead, then the correct course
is to limit the impact of their ignorance. If they are responsible, then a
direct democracy poses little threat. Hitler was elected, after all, so
ignorance of the masses does not necessarily imply that representation is
superior... one could convincingly argue quite the opposite.
Initiative/referendum states (and
Switzerland) effectively give the public the ability to override or pass
any law that the public chooses. Our analysis MUST include the quality and
effects of these laws, as well as the admission that the "public is
stupid" argument would make this situation a disaster... in theory...
How it actually plays out should dispel any fears, but we
cling as barnacles to the rock of our individuality... the makeup of which must
include our passionately held beliefs. If we correct our positions when
we are wrong, we lose a part of ourselves, but it is a cancerous part. We
should rejoice in its excise. Socrates sought wisdom for the joy of it.
Philosophy. He said to be right, and to understand was a far greater treasure
than winning an argument. What we gain is wisdom, understanding, and a proper
humility.
I cannot help but apply the most extreme scrutiny to the
practice of representative rule making. When one supposes this may be correct,
and analyzes the world through this lens, many new questions... fulfilling
questions come to the surface.
Communism, for example... if the peoples' soviet union
had been directly controlled, how would it have evolved? Would the distribution
have been more rational? Would they have evolved into a merit based system of
quasi-market distribution with limits on profit margins for enterprises? We
will never know, but this is FERTILE THINKIN' GROUND.
A look at US History is another great intellectual pursuit.
We read the inspiring words of the founders... we see the wisdom they displayed
in the checks and balances system. Why did the creation of these people turn
into what we have today? Representation plays a primary or secondary roll in
almost every bad decision, war, and scandal in American history. This lens is
clear as day.
Consider any historic issue. Say... slavery. Was there
popular support for slavery? Was it 50%? Did anyone ask? It really didn't
matter, did it? No referendums... just politicians... making all the decisions.
How about this. Extradition laws. Would the people of the
north submit to the demand that they return southern slaves and pay taxes to
support enforcement of fugitive slave laws? This was done for political
interests, and was never supported by the people. What would have happened if
any slave could simply gain their freedom by crossing a state line? In any
state with slavery, it would be excessively expensive to employ slave labor,
which could run a manageable distance to safety. This would be extremely
pronounced in states close to Pennsylvania... freedom... so close.
Oooh... Maryland. How would that have unfolded? The state is
really thin, and it would be expensive to protect against their flight to
Pennsylvania. Would the mass of white male landowners pay to support this
enterprise, even though the majority owned no slaves in Maryland? Would a
domino effect have killed the economic viability of slavery, because the masses
would not consent to socialize the high costs of keeping a slave state? This was
pro-plantation policy... not pro-white landowner. The two groups are not
synonymous, and without the plantation dollars lobbying representatives, would
slavery have evaporated?
History is explained so well when we pin the blame on
representation itself, as a core defect in our governing system. Every war and
a vast majority of historical blunders would not have been undertaken
without the distortions of the public will that representation inevitably
introduces.
Is our belief in representation simply a result of
conditioning? How much influence can repetition and conditioning have? Can an
entire population fervently believe some set of ideas with no proof, simply
because of the prevailing attitude?
Do I really need to answer this? Consider religion.
We believe fervently that the masses are vulnerable in this
way, but we vainly believe we are not subject to these same forces
individually. I believe that representation only exists because it exploits our
blind spots. Everywhere I look, I find evidence supporting this finding. I just
looked up the history of referendums in my state. In the house, referendums
sailed through. They were popular at the time... unions and other groups threw
their support behind them. There was excellent public support. And it failed
the senate... and failed again... and then got enacted to much hoorahs, with
the provision that the public couldn't modify the basics of the government...
the constitution and such... like... how elections were run... districts were
drawn... trivial stuff like that.
About two hundred times a year, I stood with my classmates
and pledged my allegiance to a flag. I pledged my allegiance to the republic
for which it stands. Every morning I met with my young impressionable peers, we
faithfully recited this promise.
I no longer pledge myself to the republic, but to the
people. I pledge my support to the meek, that they may finally enjoy their
inheritance, purchased in tears and blood.
"I found that I was the wisest of all these men,
because I knew I was not wise" - Socrates.
Reason and truth above self.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Hi Lata,
No, you are not a mad, as far as I can see.
At a first sight, I like your Citizen Mundi initiative
very much. I realize, it is an excellent endeavour
to rise people's participation from bottom-up, thus
consistent with the (Direct) Democracy we look at.
IMHO, it looks like the very opposite of the top-down
"truths" with which some crazy scientists and other
aspirant leaders of Democracy (?) keep on inundating
so insistently the Yes-Men herd they want to head.
Cheers,
antonio - psychiatrist
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Antonio,
So I'm not crazy? Great!
I always suspected that was the case but for the last 8 weeks I've been running
Citizen Mundi and the data I've ben collecting confirms that is the case even
among relative intellectual elites. If you have a minute, come and visit us at:
https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/
Thanks again,
Lata
From: Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, 9 October, 2009 8:35:56
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Lata,
I totally agree with you: (the utmost democratic
majority of) people are not fit to govern themselves.
Very simply, average people do not want to take any
political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
requirement of Democracy.
Now the problem becomes, analyzing why when and how
such a dependent trait has been embedded into people's
relational brain.
I mean, once this imprinting mechanism had been exposed,
its reversal could be all what today's Democracy needs of.
Regards,
antonio
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Joseph,
I've just read your response.
Whilst I agree with most of it, I am not so confident that the "one
person/one vote" mantra is necessarily fair or sensible.
Moreover, from the point of view of a long term strategy to push for more
direct types of democracy, it is the biggest thorn on our side. Equal opportunity,
yes, but whilst demanding individual responsibility.
Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business leader, any
political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility about Direct
Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will laugh in your face.
"It would never work!!" they would say. Why? "Because people are
too dumb to govern themselves and you must be incredibly naive to think
otherwise"
The main reason for the preservation of Guardianship and representative systems
is, above all others, the notion that people are not fit to govern themselves.
Let me give you an example. Ireland has just approved the Lisbon Treaty. Many
people believe the Irish people were blackmailed, intimidated or brainwashed.
Others say that they were informed, as opposed to a year ago, when they
rejected the Treaty.
Let me ask you this, would it really be so unfair to ask people to fill in the
following questionnaire and shouldn't people have a responsibility to do
certain basic research before demanding that the powers that be step down and
hand everything over?
1)
The treaty of Lisbon is:
- A) document that concerns the Republic of Ireland exclusively.
- B) A document that primarily concerns the European Union.
- C) A document that primarily concerns the trade relationship between Ireland
and Portugal.
2)
The two main decision-making institutions within the EU are:
- A) The Council and the Commission
- B) The Parliament and the Commission
- C) The Parliament and the Council.
etc.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a person who does not know these
basic things is just as fit as someone who does to make a binding and
irreversible decision for their country and for the future of the entire
premise of geopolitics?
I guess this is my dilemma. I am a supporter of democracy, I criticise
democratic deficits wherever I see them and I believe that the next
evolutionary step for Mankind is, somehow, related to the improvement of
democracy. However, if I had to make a choice between giving the British people
a referendum on, say, the Euro, or giving a handful of people at the top the
decision, I would have to go with the second option... simply because I don't
trust the British people to know anything that's not been fed to them by Rupert
Murdock.
Bring in the multiple choice test and the weighted vote and I would totally
support the referendum instead.
Simple.
Lata
From: Joseph Hammer
<parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, 8 October, 2009 10:26:37
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
I would tend to agree with Hamid and Jim.
The American Medical Association is a great case study for
this issue. They have more knowledge about the medical industry than the
average individual, but that is not necessarily a good thing. It would be good
if the motivation of the actors was the unbiased betterment of mankind. This is
folly. No person can recognize the extent of his or her own bias. History
tends to exonerate the idea that any group who possesses superior
knowledge will use the information asymmetry to enrich themselves rather than
society in general.
I strongly believe in the "one person, one vote"
principal. If forced to compare the relative effects of ignorance and
power consolodation, it might be a toss up. However, we will have ignorance
through bias in any category of man. What is in our power to prevent is the
consolodation of power. Wise kings start wars... uneducated peasants seldom
think it worth the cost in blood.
In most decisions of governance, it is ethical principals
rather than specific knowledge that should drive our legislation.
Plus, most people with "education" in a field will
claim the ability to make better decisions. This education is market driven,
and not motivated by truth unless the market rewards accurate, unbiased
information.
Take economics, for example. The biggest employer of
economists is the Federal Reserve. Like the alchemists of old, these rascally
intellectuals buy into a completely fictitious notion... that you can create
money from thin air... or out of lead, as the alchemists believed. In the
heyday of alchemy, many scholarly types insisted that the layman, who doubted
the wisdom of the alchemists, was unrefined and uneducated. A college cannot
attract many students to a class that says, "Alchemy is bullshit" or
"The best monetary policy is non-intervention by the state" or
"None of these sophisticated economic models that we teach you have ever
actually worked". All of these notions would kill the entire fields of
curriculum.
Plus, over a three-year period ending in October 1994,
the Fed awarded 305 contracts to 209 professors worth a total of $3 million.
Wow... that's about 15k per professor.
Plus, to get tenure, you must publish. One critical way the
Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the
field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a
must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board
members are currently on the Fed payroll -- and the rest have been in the past.
"Knowledge" is easily perverted by self interest.
The assumption that individual scholar can make better decisions is wholly
dependent on the subject of inquiry and the incentives to mislead.
If the subject of inquiry is highly technical, then I agree
with Hamid. It is in the best interest of society to hire one or more
researchers to investigate the topic. There are many ways to make this work
well, but there are far more ways to screw it up... like letting
representatives choose the investigators (unless we structure incentives to
reward politicians for effective, honest choices... a far cry from
the current situation).
We need the knowledge, but we need to guard against
interested dogma, and letting intellectuals have more say is, like Jim said,
manipulable.
- Vanity is hemlock to those who seek truth. Be careful
what you consume.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Lata Gouveia
<latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
Do you agree that people who have more knowledge about a topic should have more
say in a decision about that topic?
Lata
http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/raw-initiatives/
|