Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

[Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>]

Doug, the example abortion was one of many examples I provided where "consensus" was unlikely, yet decisions need to be made. Thus there will be times democratic vote is necessary. There needs to be consideration of this need or sociocracy will hamper democracy.

Regards, Bruce

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM, <Doug Everingham> wrote:

Yes, Bruce, I miswrote  sociography  for  sociocracy  .

The issues you specify (abortion etc.) will not achieve total consensus but may narrow the differences.  Thus Vatican-approved writings allow uterine curettage within 12 hours after heterosexual rape or incest, presumably withholding judgment against the equivocally aborting parties who opt to decide that 'conception' (union of sperm and ovum) is unlikely durng thst time. and some 'pro-choice' abortion providers refuse to terminate pregnances later an 16 weeks' gestation unless the pregnancy gravely threatens the woman's life. All but sadistic or militaristic cults prefer to work for law changes within the local law to suit their ethics before resort to legal or vigilante executins of their opponents in the abortion debate. 

–Doug

====

On 16/11/2009, at 11:50 PM, Bruce Eggum wrote:

Doug,

I believe you meant sociocracy. I agree with the sociocracy concept, however I do not believe you can always reach consensus although a decision is necessary. Democratic methods would need to be made in those cases.

How could you reach "consensus" on; abortion, war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office etc. Nested networks are great ways to deliberate but they may adamantly disagree and have totally opposite views. [IE: right vs left]

Cheers, Bruce

Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Health Care http://tinyurl.com/ycx9vpz
http://usinitiative.com
http://vote.org/

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:53 AM, <Doug Everingham> wrote:

Hi, Hamid. 

As sociography web sites may explain, sociography started as a commercial  management system.  Each planning and decision-making section and level of the organization is split into more manageable sized parts if it becomes unwieldy. Rather than a pyramidal hierarchy structure. each administrative unit strives to reach consensus decisions with all agreed or at least no-one persisting in dissent. Each unit includes liaison persons who are each also a member of a related unit or levels of responsbility. Similar 'nested networking' work in Spain's Mondragòn Cooperatve Corporation incorporating thousands of people, and various stakeholder (employee, customer etc.) cooperatives in USA. 

Dr Shann Turnbull's papers  http://ssrn.com/author=26239  etc. are relevant, He is Principal of the International Institute for Self-governance . 

Cheers, 

–Doug 

====

On 16/11/2009, at 3:17 PM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:

Why?
Could you explain yourself?

Regards
Hamid

---

From: dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:47:18 +1000
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

It seems to me that DD is more attainable using the 

consensus--seeking nested network principles of sociocracy

(several google links)

than any multi-party, one-party or other majority-vote system,

–Doug 

===

On 16/11/2009, at 4:13 AM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:

Hi Jim

If voters don't trust or are not satisfied with what politicians do, they should be able to take their political destiny in their own hands. Nobody is allowed to make decisions
in behalf of you in your private life as long as you have not officially and lawfully accepted be represented by others, with execption for children and mentally sick people.
Why should this be allowed in political systems.
I feel that you are worry for politicians to loose their power and easy earned advantages by changing the political system to DD but I don't understand why.
Do you work as politician or are there any other reasons for that?
Everybody should be able to bring up political questions important for him / her for discussion and voting without asking politicians to permit it. Of course for people
who prefer it there should be possibile to let others (you can call them politicians) to represent them in some or all questions but this does not mean an obligation for
everybody. As you told before politicians are employees of voters, so if voters like they can fire their employees and take the political power in theri own hands.

Do you agree?
Hamid

---

From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
.
.
.
.