Joseph Hammer wrote:
I didn't mean to derail discussion.
Hi,
no problem here. Since all of us do share-in to (virtual)
Direct Democracy, everyone of us is free either to do or
do not, as each one of us likes it better as.
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."
Agreed, a WDDM Glossary could help, provided only no one
wants meanings of words to be absolute. Please remember
that many of us are not native English speakers, too. As for
myself, I started studying the English language 15 years over
ago (I was about 55) and sharend into lots and lots of English
discussions (encompassing Epistemology) thence onwards. So
late, I came to believe that a non-native English speakers will
not grasp the full meanings of the English words even.
Maybe other non-native English speakers are clever than me..
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.
I agree partially only. Plainly, the more appropriate terms
a speaker uses, the more effective the discussion will be. But
we should not forget that any communication relationship,
to be effective, requires a both word-giving speaker and a
word-receiving user.
In other words, there must be both a top-down (speaker's)
side and a bottom-up (user's) side of the communication
coin. According with Direct Democracy - whichever the
definition of this term may be - the ultimate veryfing of the
definitions and meanings of the used terms should be the
bottom-up prerogative and requirement of its users, IMHO,
not a top-down prerogative of the speakers ourselves.
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.
OK., OK., the common definition of a term should be always
suggested in advance. This notwithstanding, let the speakers
ourselves precise in which further meaning we were using a
term at every time (when and if) we were asked for by our
users.
Furthermore, IMHO, the final meaning of a word does not
depend on that word as in itself, but also and moreover on
the (everchanging) discussion context which that word has
been delivered into.
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.
Bests,
antonio
-----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" <rossin(at)tin.it>
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 <mailto:parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:33 AM
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
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
<mailto:rossin(at)tin.it>> wrote:
Hi,
some comments of mine inside
Lata Gouveia wrote, in reply to Parrhesia:
my comments below
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
<mailto:parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
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.
|