WDDM Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement : HarmonizationAndLocalism

WddmWikiMain :: News : Members : Topics : Links : Recent : All : Grouped : Login

Harmonization + Localism: A Model for a Democratic Global Society

Best Regards,

 moving freely...immigration 
 There is a tension between two 'good things': 'moving freely' on the one hand, and 'local sovereignty' on the other. Yes, if some family is running from oppression and poverty, we would want them to be welcomed by some other society. On the other hand, what if a bunch of loafers descend on a village and demand to be housed and fed? We need to acknowledget that some kind of balance is required in addressing these issues, something deeper than saying 'immigration' is good or 'immigration is bad'.

In particular, we need to see that the meaning of immigration in today's exploitive socieities is different than what the meaning would be if the world was filled with democratic societies. In such a world people would not be fleeing for human rights reasons, and a lot fewer for economic reason.  
   2005-05-31 05:02:53 by RichardMooreReturn
Comments by readers...
 I rather agree with these comments. Migration is OK on the small scale, as long as it does not overwhelm the receiving community. It brings diversity to the world, stimulates interchange of ideas ... And I agree that everything would be different if all the societies were democratic. 
   2005-06-10 03:03:27 by MiKolar
 We can distinguish between visiting on the one hand, and migration on the other. I would like a society where visitors were welcomed as guests by the community, as opposed to a purely commercial approach where visitors seek out lodgings...a kind of ongoing, reciprocity-based "exchange program". Migration, I would hope, could be handled by the dynamics of some areas needing less population, and other areas needing more - based on the carrying capacity of the areas - and it all works out to everyone's advantage.  
   2005-06-10 04:08:41 by RichardMoore
 I think that (in the ideal world) if one is able to find legal accommodation (and be able to pay for it, e.g., by getting work in the place), one should be able to settle freely in any community anywhere in the world, irrespectably of their origin. Any eligibility for the social assistance would start only after a certain length of residence in a given place. After all the social programs will be harmonized throughout the world (e.g., unemployement and health insurance standardized, made global), this requirement could actually be dropped. 
   2005-06-17 05:44:26 by MiKolar
 Hi MiKolar, What you say makes good sense in the context of today's undemocratic, centralized governments, where pacifying crumbs are dished out to a numbed population in the form of social programs. In such an environment, we would hope to be able to relocate and be entitled to the locally available crumbs. But what I'm trying to do in this blog is explore the conditions of a truly democratic society. In my view, described at the top of this page, democracy must be based on local sovereignty, not on global bureaucracies - which besides doling out global crumbs would also exercise tyranny over the world's people. History clearly shows that the larger a unit of government is, other things being equal, the less democratically responsive it is. I am mystified by the fact that so many progressives seek solutions in terms of still greater centralization into a global bureaucracy.  
   2005-06-17 09:18:14 by RichardMoore

You need to be registered and logged-in to submit a comment to a blog.

There are 3 comments on this page. [Display comments]