From: | Hamid Mohseni <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com> |
---|---|
Date: | Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:13:44 +0000 |
Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree |
Hi Vijayaraghavan,
We do not have to have an alternative to political parties. This would be imposing an alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the average person can get on with his/her life.
Voters just need the power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies need to be in this direction
Regards
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Vijayaraghavan
Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: 15 Nov 2009 04:57 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
For people to be really able to do this, an independent
setup (free from party influence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an
alternative to political parties.
Vijayaraghavan
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:12:23 +0530 wrote
Hamid,
Thatis exactly the point of DD. If people have the power to make decisions, makemistakes,
learnfrom their mistakes, and then correct them, they will ultimately mature into
grownupcitizens. Otherwise, we live in our parent's house forever.
B. T.Marking
www.sdindie21.org
From: Hamid
Mohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 20093:16 AM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree
Outcome of bad laws
decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and make them to
changethe law later on
>by new refrandoms.
>
>Regards
>
From:
parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:31:02 -0800
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Good point. The removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout history.
What is a bad law? Should they be judged by their intentions or their outcomes?
Or, does a law become “good” if it issupported by a majority of the people, or their representatives?
If a people are unjust or immoral, should a democracy allow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure?
For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdoor advertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? It violatesproperty rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public in general. Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to be superseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslim churches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this is already the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of the constitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politician would be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, but politically, aloser).
So…
Should good law based on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), or should it be based on the public will? Or both?Or neither? Or something else? Be very specific.
Parrhesia
P.S.
Our current system makes it very possible for our prejudices to work their way into law. As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power, the representatives tend to give them what they want. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government will latch onto it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill, $700Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a measure that limits power, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits for congress have had over 50% public support for over half of the last 100 years, and no congress has ever acted on it.
From:
wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 20099:05 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree
And the repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have
outgrowntheir usefulness.
B.Thomas Marking
From: Joseph
Hammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, November 07, 200910:52 PM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
A stable, fair and productive government should promotethe formation of new laws and changes to existing ones.
(To keep them fresh, one might suppose?)
Parrhesia