|DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY|
WDDM Forum : Proposals and Initiatives
Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization).
The UK has an "unwritten constitution" which is whatever the "House of Lords" decides it to be. Thus the people have not explained their commands, the Lords rule.
Today, we in the UK, found out that tomorrow, a law comes into force requiring all phone calls and text messages to be recorded. By 2009 it is intended to incorporate emails and internet activity. This law was introduced by statutory instrument and required no debate in parliament but was simply nodded through.
While I cannot provide evidence, it is my belief that a majority of the UK electorate would never have voted for such a law.
Nobody asked my view. Nobody asked for the view of anybody I know. There was no consultation with anybody as far as I know.
I am unable to reconcile this with any form of representation, not even to suppose that someone believed they were representing my best interests.
The US have a written constitution, however it is interpreted by the courts and is only enforced at the demand of the "representatives."
A "constitution" could declare a country's principles and virtue demanded of itself and it's people. Honesty, Respect, Liberty (defined by common law) Human Rights, ie free to speak, press, life etc. This must all be defined in the Constitution. The Constitution is also the structure of government, defining roles, job descriptions, how the infrastructure works, who is responsible etc. If the people control the constitution, they control the country.
Once the people have Initiative and Binding Referendum, they have the power to write or alter the constitution of their country. The Common Law, if adopted is designed to enforce these virtue, thus people who steal, kill etc. are subject to prosecution for violating the "virtue" of their Country. Of course the people also have power with I&BR to change the common law. This constitution could certainly protect against the "rule by majority" and allow rule by principle. This keeps the knee jerk decisions at a minimum.
Regards, Bruce Eggum
Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
|Conscience-based political system||808||PVR||08/01/2007 05:04AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||398||MiKolar||09/04/2007 06:57PM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||372||PVR||09/05/2007 05:04AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||390||koikaze||09/08/2007 01:23PM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||382||PVR||09/09/2007 03:19AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||370||koikaze||09/09/2007 06:07AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||356||RoyDaine||09/20/2007 08:50AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||362||PVR||09/26/2007 08:14PM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||354||RoyDaine||09/27/2007 12:53AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||345||PVR||09/27/2007 05:28AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||365||RoyDaine||09/27/2007 06:10AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||368||PVR||09/28/2007 09:29PM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||372||RoyDaine||09/29/2007 01:47AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||357||koikaze||09/29/2007 10:45AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||360||RoyDaine||09/29/2007 11:24AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||356||koikaze||09/30/2007 07:11AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||346||RoyDaine||09/30/2007 11:58AM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||354||koikaze||09/30/2007 12:40PM|
|Re: Conscience-based political system||354||BrEggum||10/11/2007 12:41PM|