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

02442: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: Hamid Mohseni <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:04:14 +0000
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

I agree but this is one alterantive to force peoples will to the power. It must be combined with many other possible different
means to make it possible for people to take over the power. Some example are civil resistance. Avoiding to pay taxes.
Avoiding to follow official rules and decisions and demonstrations. It is also possible to sue politicians for illegaly representing
people. If we think we find many ways to fight for peoples will.

Regards
Hamid


Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:11:34 +0000
From: luca_zampetti(at)yahoo.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hamid,

you can ask these categories of self-appointed beings or of agents of hidden powers many things, all things you want, no one will listen ... or rather they will apparently listen with one ear and transmit to direct output for discharge with the other ... Ostrogorski once said that the state is a (relatively) stable institution because it has a generalized capability for INTIMIDATION on its subjects, who, according to some should not be called subjects, but deserve to be deemed "Citizens", at least as if ... well: you can expect to be heard ONLY if you have some power of COUNTER-INTIMIDATION on these people ... until they have the power to buy media and votes and you don´t, nothing will change ... until there will be such a COUNTER-INTIMIDATION thing, everybody needs to take care not to snarch so loud as to wake up his own or somebody else´s dog ...

Luca Zampetti


Da: Esi <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 14:18:22
Oggetto: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Good idea
We can also present the result of discussions and votings for media and power elites and ask them to respect peoples will and not their own interests and decisions.

Hamid

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

I recommend the formation of a multinational, multiethnic and multi-locational army for the export of DD from Switzerland all over the world, first of all US and Russia, maybe for 3rd to China ... and for zeroeth, to Italy ... as well as into the so-called "international" organizations ...

Luca Zampetti


Da: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 07:30:46
Oggetto: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Bruce, 
Sociocracy is in practice more successful in increasing consensus than alternative 
51% majority or other 'democratic' but not consensus-pursuing systems        
Who then succeeds in " times [when] democratic vote is necessary"?
Abortion laws reach a variety of compromises related to the national, religious etc. cultures. 
At one extreme, aborters and voluntary abortees are charged with murder. 
At the other extreme, abortion is imposed on women for national, religious etc. reasons. 
Similar compromising applies to the other examples you mention: 
"... war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office ... "
Thus war is often launched by a relatively old, rich, powerful minority, 
or by an oppressed, desperate populace, not a 51% popular ('democratic') vote,  

Cheers 
–Doug 
====

On 17/11/2009, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Eggum wrote:

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
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0200
Subject: RE: 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 theirintentions 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 democracyallow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure?

For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdooradvertising… 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 besuperseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslimchurches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this isalready the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of theconstitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politicianwould 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 ourprejudices 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 theywant. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government willlatch 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 limitspower, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits forcongress 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

Andthe 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





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