| From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:09:14 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree |
*Hamid, *
* *
*That is exactly the point of DD. If people have the power to make
decisions, make mistakes, *
*learn from their mistakes, and then correct them, they will
ultimately mature into *
*grownup citizens. Otherwise, we live in our parent's house forever. *
* *
*B. T. Marking*
*www.sdindie21.org*
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Hamid Mohseni
*Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2009 3:16 AM
*To:* World Direct Democracy
*Subject:* RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Outcome of bad laws decided by people by refrandom will affect people
badly and make them to change the 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 tricky throughout history.
What is a bad law? Should they be judged by their intentions or their
outcomes?
Or, does a law become “good” if it is supported 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 violates
property 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an owner to be superseded by will of the public.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, a loser).
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 for limits 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, $700 Billion 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
*Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:05 AM
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Subject:* RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
*And the repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have *
*outgrown their usefulness.*
* *
*B. Thomas Marking*
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Joseph Hammer
*Sent:* Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:52 PM
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Subject:* [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
A stable, fair and productive government should promote the formation
of new laws and changes to existing ones.
(To keep them fresh, one might suppose?)
Parrhesia
------------------------------------------------------------------------