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

02465: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy

From: Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:42:17 -0600
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy

I agree Parrhesia. We must know the meaning of words to communicate. Making a WDDM glossary is necessary to our work together. I believe our work is to network and identify formats which may be used to develop democratic systems. 
Bruce Eggum



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:48 AM, <Joseph Hammer> wrote:
I didn't mean to derail discussion. I believe it fully appropriate for WDDM
to define its terminology.

We shouldn't force our meanings on others in common conversation. If someone
uses the term 'liberal' in casual conversation, for example, there is always
the desire for someone to say, "Classically, the term 'liberal' means quite
the opposite."

However, in the context of "Getting things done", we must have a rigid
vernacular to avoid confusion. This is only in the context of a project,
which I feel WDDM is, and so a definition for "Direct Democracy" in the
CONTEXT of WDDM is very important. Otherwise, we will talk past each other.

For this and other terms, it is appropriate to find the most useful
definition for detailed examination of the topic... in this case, governing
systems.

A system that is called "Direct Democracy" is more consistent if it is a
type of "Democracy", which is also defined in the context of WDDM. If we
define the two in our "Glossary of Terms", we may say... perhaps it doesn't
agree with your definition, but this is what it means when we speak of it
HERE.

I kinda like the Wikipedia definition, but that is beside the point.

It is important to define terms if we want to engage in meaningful
discussion using those terms, which I feel WDDM has been productively
seeking to do, and accomplishing. I applaud the process.

My original post wasn't aimed at "Direct Democracy", but it's more abstract
parent, "Democracy".

At the end of the day, how you define "Direct Democracy" will determine
whether I am in favor of it or not, but not whether you have chosen the
"Right" definition. If it is a useful definition, it is good enough use in
discussion.

Powuh to the people :)
Parrhesia.

-----Original Message-----
From: Esi
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:34 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy

I agree.

Take care

--------------------------------------------------
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:24 PM
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy

> Hi,
>
> IMHO, it would become reductive and un-democratic if
> everybody were banned from having his-her own definition
> of  Direct Democracy.
>
> Let's accept that Direct Democracy means Direct Democracy
> and that's enough.
>
> Also, my target is suggesting the concerned people (women,
> men and children) a free room where they can express their
> own proposals and policies from their territory grassroots
> bottom-up, without intruding the room of their neighboors
> except in the virtual world only.
>
> (of course, a common room cannot but be virtual, first of all).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> antonio
>
>
> Esi wrote: of
>> It is confusing if everybody has his own definition of Direct democracy.
>> I suggest we accept official definitions like Wikpedia´s.
>> Refers to definition of Direct democracy in Wikpedia,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy.
>>  Definitions are important but the target is more important.
>> My target is finding and realizing efficient and well working political
>> sytem accepted almost by all society members as soon as possible.
>>  Regards
>> Hamid
>>
>> *From:* Joseph Hammer
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:33 AM
>> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
>>
>> Always a pleasure to read your responses, Antonio.
>> Dream. Act.
>> Parrhesia.
>>
>>  On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>     some comments of mine inside
>>
>>
>>
>>     Lata Gouveia wrote, in reply to Parrhesia:
>>>     my comments below
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From:* Joseph Hammer
>>>     *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>>     *Sent:* Tue, 1 December, 2009 6:44:24
>>>     *Subject:* [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
>>>
>>>     It is good to define terms precisely, and I believe it is
>>>     required for an intelligent debate on a topic. I have seen a lot
>>>     of time spent on the definition of “Direct Democracy” and it
>>>     gives me pause.
>>>
>>>
>>>     While direct popular consent is the manner of law formation that
>>>     I would personally elect, that is only half of the term… DIRECT.
>>>     The other half is the choice… the democracy portion.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The power of democracy is in the idea that the form of government
>>>     that gains the support of the greatest proportion of a society
>>>     will be the best form of government for that society. In other
>>>     words, a form of government that is supported by 80% of the
>>>     people will be more prosperous than one that is supported by 60%
>>>     of the people.
>>>
>>>
>>>     (No. The concept of democracy is not so much related to
>>>     effectiveness as it is with fairness. It will always be possible
>>>     that a Dictator makes BETTER decisions... but dictatorship is
>>>     unfair. Again, prosperity has nothing to do with the concept,
>>>     other than prosperity is something the majority of people seek
>>>     and which should, therefore, be a democratic outcome. However
>>>     should does not always make it so )
>>>
>>     (ant)
>>     Right - but this looks like a false problem. Indeed, if the local
>>     policies of a collective arrangement (democracy included) were
>>     really and fairly originated by the local responsible inhabitants
>>     grassroots bottom-up, these policies will not fail to be the best
>>     prosperous decisions in that space-time.  Here the key-word is
>>     responsibility, meant as well-acknowledged freedom from demagogues
>>     and serenity of judgement.
>>
>>>
>>>     Democracy is the key here… not direct democracy or representative
>>>     democracy or socialist democracy. If the people choose it, it
>>>     will be the best government for them. If you do not believe this,
>>>     then you are using the word, “Democracy” to claim that if the
>>>     people like your system better, it is somehow worthy of the word.
>>>     It is NOT.
>>>
>>>     Oh yes... but people will democratically choose a form of
>>>     dictatorship.... You can't tell them "You can choose whatever you
>>>     want" and then when they turn around and say "We choose Adolf
>>>     Hitler" say... "well... except for that".
>>>
>>>
>>>     Designing a true democracy requires that these decisions be made
>>>     by those subject to the jurisdiction of the new government… the
>>>     people themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>     ...and they will decide whichever option demands the lowest level
>>>     of personal commitment... like... humm... representation....
>>>     (whilst maintaining that they want to have a say all along)
>>>
>>>
>>>     Democracy… choice… must be the centerpiece of any new government
>>>     that we hope to form. If we do not let the people CHOOSE whether
>>>     they prefer representation, partial representation, random
>>>     representation or NO representation, then we are not being true
>>>     to our principals… if we claim democracy to be among them.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Democracy is not the same as choice so I hope you meant
>>>     "Democracy AND choice". I though you said it was good to "to
>>>     define terms precisely".
>>>
>>>
>>>     I agree with the rest of the argument. This is like saying that a
>>>     Constitution should be drafted by the people, democratically.
>>>     Good idea...but do you realize how hard it is to get people to
>>>     participate in the political process? I'm sure you do. This is
>>>     what I run into again and again... and again. Almost like a law
>>>     of nature, the vast majority of people DON'T WANT to participate
>>>     in the political process, they want someone to govern them. They
>>>     want to spend their time doing whatever else it is they do. The
>>>     fact that most of them would not admit to this (to being sheep)
>>>     does not change their behaviour. Of couse if you ask them they'll
>>>     say they want democracy and they want to have a say, etc, etc.
>>>     But their behaviour is mostly passive and subordinate to the
>>>     cults of personality and partisanship, peer pressure and keeping
>>>     up with the Jones'. That's why we're still just a handfull of
>>>     geeks discussing this in a "World Wide" forum that could fit in
>>>     my flat. Nobody in mainstream society, mainstream media or even
>>>     specialised media knows about the "World Wide Movement for Direct
>>>     Democracy". This is the evidence of what our REAL obstacle is. If
>>>     you had a picture of a naked woman on the home page, the
>>>     membership would be 10 times what it is today.
>>>
>>
>>     (ant)
>>     Indeed.  This is no false problem...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     Like our descendants, we are blinded by our vanity in thinking
>>>     that we can design a government as a whole and demand a vote on
>>>     this imperfect beast. The ideal democracy must be designed by the
>>>     people… not voted on as a single entity, but elected, piece by
>>>     piece, according to the preferences of the individuals.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I think you meant "ancestors" and... yes, perhaps it is vanity
>>>     that drives us to design alternative models which are,
>>>     inevitably, imperfect, but I don't think so. I don't believe it
>>>     was vanity that drove Charles Darwin or any scientist working
>>>     towards finding solutions. Politics is, in a way, a science and
>>>     democracy (the real kind) is like a solution but we don't even
>>>     have lab mice to try it on.
>>>
>>
>>     (ant)
>>     We have ourselves, with lots of biases banning ourselves from
>>     "serenity of judgement",
>>     encompassing judgements for what democracy should be.
>>     Therefore, we are unable to speak fairly of "fair democracy" (the
>>     real kind) until we still suffer from biases. Traditional
>>     scientists of politics cannot help so much, if it is true that the
>>     same Einstein once said: "To break an atom is easier than to break
>>     a bias."
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     Still. again, I like the concept of what you are proposing, but,
>>>     who's going to organize the very 1st action? Is there a deadline
>>>     for the process of initiative that would, supposedly, kick start
>>>     this Constitutional drafting procedure? What do you do about the
>>>     vast majority which will choose to abstain from participating? If
>>>     you ignore them (like we do in the current systems) will it not
>>>     be a Constitution drafted by a minority of geeks like us? Or do
>>>     you make participation compulsory? Who makes it compulsory? You
>>>     see? It's a chicken and egg thing. A leaderless and equal society
>>>     is something I would literally die for. But every single day life
>>>     shows me that we have leaders because we want to have them, not
>>>     because they impose themselves upon us and we are anything but
>>>     equal. The process seems irreversible to me.
>>>
>>
>>     (ant)
>>     Why, irreversible?  I don't think so.  Before being able to say
>>     that a process cannot be reversed, you must know how it has
>>     been... versed.  In this case, the questioned process should be
>>     the "installing (top-down led) biases in one's mind" educational
>>     procedure. If you (know and) reversed that procedure, the problem
>>     is solved.
>>
>>>
>>>     Like Antonio often explains, people would have to prepare for
>>>     democracy before democracy can be. Our indocrination systems (we
>>>     call them education systems) would have to totally change and we
>>>     would have to wait for that generation to grow up and take the
>>>     reigns of a democratic government. In the past, full employment
>>>     was the golden concept. In the future we will realise that,
>>>     without full PARTICIPATION, true democracy is impossible.
>>>
>>
>>     (ant)
>>
>>     I read, in someone's signature: "Educate your child, and you'll
>>     educate yourself"
>>     and have no further coments to the remaining debate
>>
>>     cheers,
>>     antonio
>>
>>>
>>>     Our current legal system shows that big sets of rules that get
>>>     passed as one unit are polluted with a myriad of riders designed
>>>     to gain the support of special interests. A constitution is no
>>>     different. If it is designed as one big chunk, we will have to
>>>     make “compromises” to enlist the support of certain groups, and
>>>     it will taint our new government.
>>>
>>>
>>>     If we define direct democracy as having no representatives, then
>>>     we have a solid new term to use in our debate (what other
>>>     definition could there be?). This is great, but if we are
>>>     championing the form of government as the “best” without
>>>     consulting the people who must be subject to it, then the term
>>>     democracy is not appropriate to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Again, I don't think most of us are saying it is "the best". We
>>>     have no proof of that. I think what frustrates most of us is that
>>>     it never was, we don't know if it's the best or even good. It was
>>>     never given a chance. It seems to me like it would be the
>>>     fairest, the most evolved system of government, sure, but Direct
>>>     democracy has to be tested in many different incarnations (with
>>>     and without weighted voting, with and without compulsory
>>>     participation, with and without universal initiative provisions,
>>>     etc) before we can assess its effectiveness....
>>>
>>>
>>>     But what percentage of the population is interested in such
>>>     experiments? As long as people have reasonable standards of
>>>     living they will (the majority) choose to spend their time doing
>>>     anything else, it doesn't matter what, just NOT this. The only
>>>     situation that can reverse that is if people are in a desperate
>>>     and immediate struggle to survive. We spend Billions supposedly
>>>     bringing "democracy" to former dictatorships and we can't even be
>>>     bothered to participate in our own. I'd like to think it's
>>>     because it's NOT really a democracy and our desillusinment with
>>>     it is what causes the low turnouts. But this is not the truth.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Look at reality. Look at the free choices people make, as
>>>     consumers, as parents, etc. How far down their list of priorities
>>>     is something like "Constitutional reform"? How many adults with
>>>     serious careers, children, the whole nine yards have I met who
>>>     told me to my face that they don't have any interest in politics,
>>>     don't know the first thing about it, don't want to know and can
>>>     we change the subject please... although the last month of last
>>>     year's Presidential campaign was quite exciting... seeing all
>>>     those people in Chicago was almost as good as watching Pop Idol.
>>>     I'm not making any of this up. This is the average Western
>>>     citizen, not some trailer park example. This apathy is the
>>>     biggest obstacle to any of the ideas put forward in this forum.
>>>
>>>
>>>     To be a direct DEMOCRACY, it must be both DIRECT and CHOSEN by
>>>     the people.
>>>
>>>
>>>     The best use of all the research that is being done here is to
>>>     inform the public when they decide for themselves what course
>>>     they wish to pursue. No one can predict what that will be, and
>>>     the assumption that the best government can be guessed is pure
>>>     hubris.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I can predict that if you phone people and ask them, the majority
>>>     will tell you they are not interested in taking part in your
>>>     "survey" or whatever you're selling.
>>>
>>>
>>>     I have gotten a lot more positive response from, “Would you like
>>>     to choose for yourself?” than “Would you like to switch to
>>>     [Insert form of government here]?”
>>>
>>>     Well, of course you have!!! Did you expect people to SAY "No, I
>>>     prefer not to choose for myself, I am a sheep and I know it." ?
>>>
>>>     How can you draw any conclusions from that? How many of the
>>>     people who SAID they would prefer to choose for themselves would
>>>     even cross the street, IN ORDER to make those choices? Just like
>>>     anything in life, talk is cheap. They won't lift a finger to make
>>>     it happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Democracy must be the goal. It has never been tried. Not really.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Fully agree. Please forgive my negativity. I have faith in the
>>>     concept of democracy. It's Western people I'm not so sure about.
>>>     I think that an alternative democratic experiment would be very
>>>     popular in North Korea, China or Cuba... but it would not be
>>>     allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Think BIG,
>>>
>>>     Parrhesia
>>>
>>>
>>>     PS… something to think on.
>>>
>>>     What a fine example of leadership you're giving us below. Don't
>>>     worry, I've been accused of the same myself.
>>>
>>>     My point is that it will always take instigators, leaders,
>>>     motivators...like you.
>>>
>>>
>>>                     Welcome to Democracy
>>>
>>>                                     In each step, you will be
>>>     choosing what role you wish government to play in your everyday
>>>     life. Vote according to your preferences. In each step, there
>>>     will be content and guidance provided by the organizations you
>>>     have selected.
>>>
>>>                                     You have selected: WDDM and The
>>>     Mises Institute as your scholars. (Choose more /here/ if you wish)
>>>
>>>                                     If these organizations provide
>>>     video, text or other media for each decision, they will be made
>>>     available at the appropriate times. You will also see the
>>>     recommended choices of these scholars next to the options
>>>     themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>                                     Would you support
>>>
>>>                                                     (choose all that
>>>     apply)
>>>
>>>                                                     X _ _ Anarchy,
>>>     the complete absence of a compelling body of government.
>>>
>>>                                                     X X X A system of
>>>     government.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                                     You chose a system of government.
>>>     In proceeding, you may elect to make each decision
>>>
>>>                                     How
>>>
>>>                                                     X X X Cooperate
>>>     to design a democratic government from the ground up according to
>>>     the preferences of society.
>>>
>>>                                                     _ _ _ A new
>>>     government designed by random representatives
>>>
>>>                                                     _ _ _ The current
>>>     government, in its existing form
>>>
>>>                                                     _ _ _The current
>>>     government, with some changes.
>>>
>>>     (This will preset all of the choices to the values currently
>>>
>>>     established by our government, which you can change)
>>>
>>>
>>>                                     Would you support
>>>
>>>     (choose all that apply)
>>>
>>>                                                         Completely
>>>     Representative Government
>>>
>>>                                                     X X X
>>>     Non-representative government
>>>
>>>                                                     X X X Mixed
>>>     government
>>>
>>>
>>>                                     For representation, do you prefer
>>>     your representatives to
>>>
>>>     (choose all that apply)
>>>
>>>                                                     _ _ X Pass
>>>     binding laws (on areas you select)
>>>
>>>                                                     _ _ X Make
>>>     non-binding suggestions (on areas you select)
>>>
>>>                                                     X _ X A Mix of
>>>     the two
>>>
>>>
>>>                                     You said you would supported a
>>>     government with mixed representation. What areas and what powers
>>>     would you assign
>>>
>>>                                                     None  Suggestion
>>>       (NSB)
>>>
>>>                                                     N N N       Military
>>>
>>>                                                     N NS N     Banking
>>>
>>>                                                     NSB NS S Trade
>>>
>>>                                                     …
>>>
>>>
>>>     Etcetera… you get the idea. From the decisions of the governed
>>>     emerges real democracy… as socialist or free as the people wish.
>>>     Do not attach freedom to democracy… do not attach capitalism or
>>>     socialism or any other ism to it… make it the pure _expression_ of
>>>     the public will and it will be beautiful>>>
>>>
>>>     Beautiful. Accept no less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
h
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]