Hello Hamid
To me, "education" does not mean the achievement of a school degree.
The "Education" I refer to deals with parenting and child's personality
basic formation, to facilitate the latter's self-organization of a
democratic
structure in their minds.
Details in my website at: http://www.flexible-learning.org
and, under the item /rossin , at:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm
Regards,
antonio
Esi ha scritto:
Hello Antonio
For me it is obvious in a democratic system
worth its name, all mantally normal adult people have right to vote
withou needing any kind of permission from elites.
I don´t see any reason that educated
peoples votes should be more worth than uneducated. I have seen many
uneducated people and even analfabets which were more reasonable and
human than educated people.
We should not forget that Hitler, Mangler
and many other dictators were educated people.
Education is a power mean which in right
hands can do marvelous things and in wrong hands catastrophees.
Regards
Hamid
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 11:14 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hallo Hamid,
Not exactly.
I am discussing amout the current, discussion-made, context of human
relationships,
that is rooted in the family and leads from family grassroots bottom up
to the higher
collective arrangement, through politics, until the State.
Which means, IMHO, if the current context of human relationships, the
so-called
"system", were hierarchical, apartheid and cast shaped, every kind of
collective
arrangement - including Direct Democracy - we perform within a
collectivity,
cannot but be hierarchical, apartheid and cast sahaped system.
Therefore, genuine Direct Democracy shall be built starting from a
genuine
democratic, DD-like arrangement of the family bottom, and thence
upwards
until the State.
Just my two DD cents,
antonio
Esi wrote:
God evening Antonio and Jim
Are you discussing about a kind of hierarchical, apartheid, cast system
or DD decomcracy?
Regards
Hamid
Are you writing
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it>
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 10:35 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
William McConochie ha scritto:
10/14/09
Dear Jim, Antonio and others:
Questions about who should be allowed to vote in a government can be
explored by research. Especially if one supports democratic forms of
government, one should let citizens participate in voting on such
issues as
to who should vote. For example, I have done research asking citizens
if persons with more education should have their votes on policy issues
count more than votes of persons with less education. The majority of
citizens were of the opinion that all citizens' votes should count
equally.
(antonio)
This means, if the majority of voters were indoctrinate gullible people
with
no or little education enabling them for criticism, their decisional
power as
expressed by voting is risible.
A way to address the ignorance concern of some citizens is to follow
Jefferson's recommendation to educate them. This is a reasonable
long-term ideal, but not a practical short term one, except perhaps in
a questionnaire itself. E.g. one could present an issue and pros and
cons
and then solicit the citizen's vote on that issue. Then present another
issue, etc. In Oregon before issue elections we
get voter pamphlets that provide this sort of information weeks before
the actual vote, to help inform citizens on the issues they are asked
to
vote on.
(ant)
Nice.
But who can defend the citizens from tendentious i.e.false informations
in the pamphlets? Maybe, the citizen herself only can do it.
Jefferson's
recommendation becomes actual here.
Another approach is to do research to find out what citizens want from
government on a range of general and specific issues, not as an actual
legal vote that determines policy but as a way of reliably measuring
public
opinion to inform both governments and the media, and via the media the
citizenry, on what the community consider to be the "common good",
programs and policies that represent the best interests of the
community
at that point in time. These sorts of surveys could and should be
repeated
regularly, in my opinion, and should ask more questions than a typical
Pew,
Gallup or other national poll.
More questions on a topic increase reliability of the findings, rather
than
taking "sound bites" or "opinion bites".
The questionnaire I sent to you a few days ago is a draft of the sort
of
questionnaire I am referring to.
I invite your review of it and comments on it and on this general model
for assessing the common good.
If there's enough interest, I can load the questionnaire on my web site
and citizens from anywhere in the world can fill it out to begin
informing us about citizen-defined "common good" from one community and
nation to the next.
It seems to me, your questionnary is too much detailed and uneasy to
handle, which makes it lose interest. Anyway the idea sounds good.
Regards,
antonio
Best regards, Bill McConochie.
Politicalpsychologyresearch.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
proto-socio-neurological enculturations and as useful fictions
are not necessarily symbiotic with, nor necessarily benignly
adjuvant to the welfare of their unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans.
Freedom in humans consists of the ability to liberate
oneself from the tyranny of reificationalist imprinting.
Antonio Rossin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************
--
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
. . . .
*********************************
|