Dear All,
Mirek wrote -
"....the logical conclusion seems to be that if we want to achieve a just society (democracy), we have no chance to do so within the current money system designed to benefit only a small segment of the society"
"Shouldn't we (the DD promoters, WDDM, ...) then pay also some (more, a lot of) attention to the reform of the money system???
We should indeed."

PVR: This can be considered in another manner. If we are able to achieve a just and peaceful society through DD then the current money system will, as a consequence, be replaced through the altered social dynamics with a more people friendly system. The link below gives an article on this matter and a discussion on that: [www.myverdict.net]

But the first requirement for achieving a just and peaceful society (through DD) would be that most, if not all, people should believe in and aspire for it. Only then would DD itself become a reality in the first place. For this being focused on peace is a basic necessity. It is needless to say that the proponents of DD should themselves be focused on peace. Otherwise we will be criticizing each other just for the sake of it and be engaged in endless discussions.

QUOTE of Shadow Parliament
Three issues seem essential for starting to move
towards the DD:
1.Getting a Shadow Parliament within the Particracy.
2.Establish a logistic 3 Functions support:
1.Initiative (supporting individual proposals)
2.Debate (consensus building)
3.Decision (upon a consensus threshold; no snapshot vote)
3.Propound Sincerity, which appears to be the
critical condition of DD.
UNQUOTE

Georges' idea is fine but he fails to appreciate that his logistic 3 functions support has also been suggested by others in different forms. Nicole's Enitiative and Roy Daine's My Verdict together provide the logistic 3 functions support proposed by Georges.

To propound sincerity is critical not only for the success of DD but to usher DD in the first place. Only when we try to appreciate each other's point of view can we hope to usher in a system that would be sensitive to the freedom and dignity of each individual.

The word 'Definition' means (as per Oxford Dictionary) - "a statement of the exact meaning of a word or the nature or scope of something". We try to define DD to clarify its scope.

Since DD has a crucial economic implication as mentioned above, I would modify the suggested integrated definition as - "DD is a socio-politico-economic structure wherein sovereignty is vested directly in the people without the intermediary domination of any political party and who in exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination determine their own governance through the methods of Initiative, Binding Referendum & Recall."

We have several worthwhile suggestions for ushering in DD but for success we need to allow integration of ideas put forth from various points of view. There is no room for oneupmanship here. We have a democratic way of deciding things and we should utilize it.

PVR