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

02745: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

From: "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 12:55:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

Dear all,
needless to say, I agree with Ted completely. I just wanted to point out
that the myth of "parliamentary democracy" is based on the delusion
pretending that the base of democracy is a multi-party system (contrary to
one-party system, like once that behind the Iron Curtain, defined as
dictatorship). I have personally experienced both a one-party and a
multiparty-system and see that the difference is much smaller than the myth
pretends. In a multy-party system, power is, to some extent, diluted, while
in a one-party system, it is concentrated. However, all parties behave in
the same way - they put the interests of the respective oligarchy above the
interests of the citizens. I watch the spectacle in Sweden on a daily basis
and am disgusted. Most Swedes still let themselves bee brainwashed because
they enjoy a relatively high living standard. On the contrary, in Czech
Republic, most people are not so well-off, and consequently, they are angry
and dissatisfied with the political corruption, politicians´ lies and
arrogance. For this reason, I believe that a democratization of the system
will occur much earlier in Czech Republic than in Sweden. For ordinary
people to back our movement, the target of criticism must be the big
parties. That´s why I focus on party-political oligarchies rather than
oligarchies in general. It´s just a matter of strategy.
Sincerely, Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS


To Jiri and Everyone Else:

Jiri is correct in exposing parties as an enemy of democracy. However,
he mistakes the symptom for the disease. The disease is oligarchy. ALL
"representative democracies" are a euphemism for oligarchy. Isn't it
completely clear that "representative democracy" is an oxymoron? The
correct phrase would be "elected oligarchy." The parties are simply the
factions within the oligarchy.

Until we, who are promoting real, true, authentic democracy--which means
the people making informed decisions on agenda, priorities, and policy
after reasoned discourse--call the foe by its true name: OLIGARCHY--and
get the people to understand they are giving up their power to a
chimera--the oligarchs will continue to prevail.

So: "constitutional monarchies": republics; "representative
democracies"; "people's republics"; "the vanguard of the proletariat";
"Islamic Republics"--THEY ARE ALL OLIGARCHIES and are leading humanity
to ruination.

Why? Because they are ALL led by people who are power hungry,
materially greedy, and arrogant which causes, inevitably, a narrow and
distorted perception of reality by the polity, as in delusional and
sociopathic thinking. Let's start calling the crazed system we all have
by its proper name or we don't stand a chance.

Ted Becker

Ted Becker

"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 01/14/11 12:52 PM >>>
MessageThe basic fault, repeatedly made, is to call party-based regimes
"democracy". The shortcomings criticized are the consequence of the rule
by parties. Every party (except those who try to introduce elements of
direct democracy) are by their very nature anri-democratic. We must get
rid of the parties and establish rule by the people. Models and
procedures exist already. Then, most of the problems discussed will
vanish. As long as we consider rule by parties as "democracy", we are
getting nowhere.
Sibcerely, Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
From: David Parker
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,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 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 natulegitimacy 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')
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSkhR-ve8s&feature=player_embedded#!

I knew I was right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAVvT0cy404

Dumbing down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ7M7209oDY

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.

Cheers: Dave

On Modern Servitude

Evidence of Revision

http://www.youtube.com/user/Slavestorms

http://www.youtube.com/user/FakeryTV
http://members.shaw.ca/davefparker/

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Blomson
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 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

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