----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:18
PM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS
The means
sounds good but what are the ends? What is more important, property rights or
the right to vote in democratic elections? [DIEbold-Intel Inside] Since
we have no real property rights our vote is meaningless. "I owe my soul to the
company store" Frank Chodorov covered voting and the lesser of two evils.
Like Moses said, "Look (it) up" Will we still have a state with a monopoly law
enforcement apparatchik funded by immoral direct taxation? [CIA Inside] Is it
true, as Frank said, that Socialists are born not made?
I like what
-Hans Herman Hoppe had to say, from his book, Democracy: the god that
failed
What can we
do now, in order to prevent the process of civilizational decline from running
its full course to an economic and social catastrophe? Above all, the idea of
democracy and majority rule must be delegitimized. Ultimately, the course of
history is determined by ideas, be they true or false. Just as kings could not
exercise their rule unless a majority of public opinion accepted such rule as
legitimate, so will democratic rulers not last without ideological support in
public opinion.48 Likewise ,the transition from monarchical to democratic rule
must be explained as fundamentally nothing but a change in public opinion. In
fact, until the end of World War I, the overwhelming majority of the public in
Europe accepted monarchical rule as legitimate.49 Today, hardly anyone would
do so. On the contrary, the idea of monarchical government is considered
laughable. Consequently, a return to the ancient regime must be regarded as
impossible. The legitimacy of monarchical rule appears to have been
irretrievably lost. Nor would such a return be a genuine solution. For
monarchies, whatever their relative merits, do exploit and do contribute to
present-orientedness as well. Rather, the idea of democratic-republican rule
must be rendered equally if not more laughable, not in the least by
identifying it as the source of the ongoing process of decivilization. But at
the same time, and still more importantly, a positive alternative to monarchy
and democracy-the idea of a natural order-must be delineated and understood.
On the one hand, this involves the recognition that it is not exploitation,
either monarchical or democratic, but private property, production, and
voluntary exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization. On the
other hand, it involves the recognition of a fundamental sociological insight
(which incidentally also helps identify precisely where the historic
opposition to monarchy went wrong): that the maintenance and preservation of a
private property based exchange economy requires as its sociological
presupposition the existence of a voluntarily acknowledged natural elite-a
nobilitas naturalis.so The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions
between various private property owners is decidedly nonegalitarian,
hierarchical, and elitist. As the result of widely diverse human talents, in
every society of any degree of complexity a few individuals quickly acquire
the status of an elite. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom,
bravery or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess "natural
authority," and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect.
Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and
genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not
passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families
with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and
exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints
against each other, and it is these very leaders of the natural elite who
typically act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge, out of a sense
of obligation required and expected of a person of authority or even out of a
principled concern for civil justice, as a privately produced "public good. is
In fact, the endogenous origin of a monarchy (as opposed to its exogenous
origin via conquest)S2 can only be understood against the background of a
prior order of natural elites. The small but decisive step in the transition
to monarchical rule-the original sin-consisted precisely in the monopolization
of the function of judge and peacemaker. The step was taken once a single
member of the voluntarily acknowledged natural elite-the king-insisted,
against the opposition of other members of the social elite, that all
conflicts within a specified territory be brought before him and conflicting
parties no longer choose any other judge or peacekeeper but him. From this
moment on, law and law enforcement became more expensive: instead of being
offered free of charge or for a voluntary payment, they were financed with the
help of a compulsory tax. At the same time, the quality of law deteriorated:
instead of upholding the pre-existing law and applying universal and immutable
principles of justice, a monopolistic judge, who did not have to fear losing
clients as a result of being less than impartial in his judgments, could
successively alter the existing law to his own advantage. It was to a large
extent the inflated price of justice and the perversions of ancient law by the
kings which motivated the historical opposition to monarchy. However,
confusion as to the causes of this phenomenon prevailed. There were those who
recognized correctly that the problem lay with monopoly, not with elites or
nobility.53 But they were far outnumbered by those who erroneously blamed it
on the elitist character of the rulers instead, and who accordingly strove to
maintain the monopoly of law and law enforcement and merely replace the king
and the visible royal pomp by the "people" and the presumed modesty and
decency of the II common man." Hence the historic success of democracy.
Ironically, the monarchy was then destroyed by the same social forces that
kings had first stimulated when they began to exclude competing natural
authorities from acting as judges. In order to overcome their resistance,
kings typically aligned themselves with the people, the common man.54
Appealing to the always popular sentiment of envy, kings promised the people
cheaper and better justice in exchange and at the expense of taxing-cutting
down to size-their own betters (that is, the kings' competitors). When the
kings' promises turned out to be empty, as was to be predicted, the same
egalitarian sentiments which they had previously courted now focused and
turned against them. After all, the king himself was a member of the nobility,
and as a result of the exclusion of all other judges, his position had become
only more elevated and elitist and his conduct only more arrogant.
Accordingly, it appeared only logical then that kings, too, should be brought
down and that the egalitarian policies, which monarchs had initiated, be
carried through to their ultimate conclusion: the monopolistic control of the
judiciary by the common man. Predictably, as explained and illustrated in
detail above, the democratization of law and law enforcement-the substitution
of the people for the king-made matters only worse, however. The price of
justice and peace has risen astronomically, and all the while the quality of
law has steadily deteriorated to the point where the idea of law as a body of
universal and immutable principles of justice has almost disappeared from
public opinion and has been replaced by the idea of law as legislation
(government-made law). At the same time, democracy has succeeded where
monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the
natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their
tradition of culture and economic independence, intellectual farsightedness,
and moral and spiritual leadership has been forgotten. Rich men still exist
today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or
indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state's
continued favors than people of far lesser wealth. They are typically no
longer the heads of long established leading families but nouveaux riches.
Their conduct is not marked by special virtue, dignity, or taste but is a
reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientedness,
opportunism, and hedonism that the rich now share with everyone else;
consequently, their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than
anyone else's. Hence, when democratic rule has finally exhausted its
legitimacy the problem faced will be significantly more difficult than when
kings lost their legitimacy. Then, it would have been sufficient to abolish
the king's monopoly of law and law enforcement and replace it with a natural
order of competing jurisdictions, because remnants of natural elites who could
have taken on this task still existed. Now, this will no longer suffice. H the
monopoly of law and law enforcement of democratic governments is dissolved,
there appears to be no other authority to whom one can turn for justice, and
chaos would seem to be inevitable. Thus, in addition to advocating the
abdication of democracy, it is now of central strategic importance that at the
same time ideological support be given to all decentralizing or even
secessionist social forces. In other words, the tendency toward political
centralization that has characterized the Western world for many centuries,
first under monarchical rule and then under democratic auspices, must be
systematically reversed.55 Even if as a result of a secessionist tendency a
new government, whether democratic or not, should spring up, territorially
smaller governments and increased political competition will tend to encourage
moderation as regards exploitation. In any case, only in small regions,
communities or districts will it be possible again for a few individuals,
based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding
professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, and superior
judgment and taste, to rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged
authorities and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order of competing
judges and overlapping jurisdictions-an "anarchic" private law society-as the
answer to monarchy and democracy.
How do you
get people to withdraw their moral support for the state? It can take my money
but it can't take my mind or take me for a ride. Can you convince people to
get out of the car?
Living free
in an un-free world (The general state 'of mind')
I knew I
was right
Dumbing
down
Art
appreciation. What are all these artists trying to tell us in their books,
songs, speeches and signs?
George
Harrison wrote Taxman then 40 years later he wrote brainwashed. What was he
trying to tell us?
What do our
wise elders tell us to do these days? Keep shopping, only 364 days until
ChistMyth.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Blomson
[fred.blomson(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: January 13, 2011 10:38
AM
To: giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it; wddm@world-wide-democracy.net;
latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk; becketl(at)auburn.edu
Subject: [WDDM] MANY
ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND VOTERS.
There are
tested many different methods of recruiting and engaging members and voters.
We'd love to see our political system as democratic, but we cannot
ignore the fact that today's market economy dominates everything in society
and even politics. Political parties present their missions like commercial
products and they need a lot of money for it.
In the case of direct
democracy, one can read that it is possible to buy votes!
Frankly, is it
possible to operate and to apply direct democracy in a capitalist society?
Is representative direct democracy a solution as some claim?
Historically, the monarchy and dictatorship seems to have dominated the
world the longest time.
The state of Athens seems to have been a
non-market economic experiment and notice that the large number of slaves
and all the women did not participate.
Later the bastard representative
democracy and the political parties ware established in the shadow of the
market economy and sometimes besides military power.
Now we know that
globalization is inevitable going on and that information technology is
expanding at breakneck speed.
Soon, every youth, in the whole world,
will hold an Ipad in the hand and will be aware of the opportunities who are
opening up with it.
The Greeks of ancient Athens did not talk about
equality but the meaning of direct democracy was to establish justice, among
other things.
Today, according to the declaration of human rights is
equality generally accepted by all and so is democracy (even if they mean
the bastard one and not genuine direct democracy!)
How will the
dominance of the market economy be limited?
The market economy makes
that money is collected in a few and thereby prevents materialistic
equality. Taxes can never establish materialistic equality.
Democracy,
equality and justice are three "fused together" concepts which, like oil and
water, cannot coexist with market economy.
What characterize the
Athenian experiment, is dialogue ideology and philosophy.
If we want to
increase the number of members and voters, we must ignore the marketing and
market economy. We need to concentrate our energy on dialogue and on
ideology; our conclusions will join us together. Members who are willing and
able to participate can be registered with the image and presentation to be
genuine and to produce social cohesion.
We need to discuss what we want
to do to save and improve the world and we have to propose laws! E.g. a
global law of one child per family!
Then, members and voters can suggest
themselves which laws are needed to create equality and justice.
The
Athenian democratic experiment needs to be complemented and developed on its
own terms to suppress the dominance of the market economy and to subordinate
it directly to our democratic laws!
Hereby I propose to replace the
party name to Equality Party EP. (Jämlikhetspartiet JP).
This is a
non-party as ideological equality is widely accepted and applied always, by
everyone and everywhere.
The idea is to bring attention away from the
old-fashioned partisan politics, party dictatorship and the personality
cult, toward laws that we propose, discuss and vote.
Please avoid the
word politics, democracy, party etc. Type in the website more about
nomokracy, legislative proposals, laws, decisions, ideology, justice, power
to the people and that equality and justice is our goal! Is it?
What do
you think? I am grateful for an answer!
fred.blomson @ hotmail.com
SITES RELEVANT TO THE DIRECT DEMOCRATIC
NOMOCRACY
http://nomokrati.wordpress.com, in Swedish
http://elaws.wordpress.com, in English