Re: Infrastructure of our group[s]

From:	marielle <marielle(at)tomaatnet.nl>
Date:	Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:25:40 -0500
Subject:	Re: Infrastructure of our group[s]

Dear Friends,

The problem with man-made rules is always that they can easily be broken. This may happen
for selfish reasons or out of frustration with the existing rules. Whatever the motives
for breaking rules may be, rules are less important than the integrity of the persons who
live 'under' these rules, be they imposed or voluntarily accepted.

This is why I think that the first thing to be checked about (future) participants is
their commitment to the cause and their willingness to spend time and energy and to take
responsibility. It doesn't matter if people do not commit to very much, if only they
deliver on their promise, no matter how little may be involved. We have no procedure in
place to do this. Anyone can jump in or out of the conversation as they please. Some
enhance the collective with their ideas or words of encouragement, while others are
wreaking havoc and chase others away from the group through ego-centric attitudes, which
is fine, as long as we do not expect any results.

A referendum is a poor way of finding out what people want, because the first question to
be asked is: 'Who asks the questions?' A referendum can be worded in such a way that it
gives a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. A referendum cannot deal with the
arguments involved, so in order to function well, there has to be a discussion prior to
it, in which the issue can be clarified. Everyone who has filled out surveys knows that a
straight answer is not always possible, even within a range of options.

Doug Everingham has repeatedly brought the idea of 'Nested Networks' to our attention.
See e.g. articles by Shann Turnbull.
http://www.camac.gov.au/camac/camac.nsf/byHeadline/PDFSubmissions_2/$file/Shann_Turnbull_CSR.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=321203

The way I see things now, we need to co-operate in a decentralised manner, so that every
group can do their own special thing. It is good to have different systems going, so that
there is room for experimentation. In declaring democracy sacro-sanct, we close the door
on other options. We should allow 'a thousand flowers to grow', so that best practices
can be determined. (And what is best practice in one instance could be worst practice
under different circumstances). Otherwise we are like Henry Ford who said that his
factory offered any colour of car, as long as it was black. We need to find out what
talents there are within the group and take it from there. That must be our point of
departure in decisions about the 'colour' that we can produce together.

To avoid our trying to re-invent the wheel, we need to have a general idea of what has
already been thought out. The number of articles on the subject is overwhelming, so I am
not suggesting that we read them all, but it will teach us some humility in the
realisation that this particular group of world citizens is not very likely to come up
with THE solution to world governance issues. Nevertheless, our contribution can be
valuable if we are willing to take on a well defined task that falls within the
competency of those participants who are willing to commit themselves to it.

With love,
Marielle

Just an example of other things on offer:
http://escholarship.org/uc/cens
There are 628 publications in this collection, of the Centre for Embedded Network
Sensing, published between 2001 and 2009
One of these is from: HOOGHE LIESBET and MARKS GARY (2003). Unraveling the Central
State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97 ,
pp 233-243
doi:10.1017.S0003055403000649

The reallocation of authority upward, downward, and sideways from central states has
drawn attention from a growing number of scholars in political science. Yet beyond
agreement that governance has become (and should be) multi-level, there is no consensus
about how it should be organized. This article draws on several literatures to
distinguish two types of multi-level governance. One type conceives of dispersion of
authority to general-purpose, nonintersecting, and durable jurisdictions. A second type
of governance conceives of task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. We
conclude by specifying the virtues of each type of governance.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
To: "The Community of World Citizens" <worldcit(at)googlegroups.com>
Cc: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:30 AM
Subject: Infrastructure of our group[s]

Fellow Advocates of democracy,

Using the definition:

Democracy is a political system in which government is either carried
out by the people (direct democracy), or the power to govern is
granted to elected representatives (republicanism). The term is
derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "the power of
the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος
(krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to
denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states,
notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related
forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there
is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3]
there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes,
equality and freedom.[4] These principles are reflected by all
citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power.
[5] A third common principle, though less measurable, is that all
citizens are promised certain legitimized freedoms and liberties,
which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

We have long discussed democracy as controlled by the people either
directly or using Initiative and Binding Referendum to control
representative government.

The common requirement is an assembly of people willing to participate
in their community and process of government. This assembly can
develop initiatives presented for adoption by a Referendum of all
people of the community, jurisdiction.

Software is fast being developed which allows huge numbers of people
to view initiatives, rank them by cyber vote which determines the
“popular” choice. Selected in this way, the “top” initiatives may be
presented in a referendum to choose implementation.

I think [in this our group, community] we need to develop our
“culture” or “principles” which these initiatives must be limited by.
Obviously to have equal rights, the minority's must be protected and
liberty defined. Religions like any other group must not have any
powers over the community nor participate in governance. As we develop
our group methods of decision making, we may discover ways to utilize
democracy which could eventually be used as an example for other
body's.

There are many parts to this endeavor. Unbiased Education is of course
necessary, as well as developing methods to select people who will
serve to administer and implement the decisions of the people. Each
person is sovereign as is each community, county, state, nation the
individual resides in. An assembly of Nations must respect the
sovereignty of each Nation of the assembly, preserving the uniqueness
and culture of each Nation, Country.

So as Rufo says: “There should be rules that stress a democratic
process and strive for consensus, but while maintaining effectiveness
of the organization and pleasurable conditions for current and future
members.”

Let us make infrastructure rules for our group only. From this
experience we could develop some examples which may serve to fulfill
Rufo's welcome suggestion. Shall we do it? Bruce

02523: Re: Infrastructure of our group[s]