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

00462: Re: Epistemological Revolution (Chris et Al)

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:42:42 +0100
Subject: Re: Epistemological Revolution (Chris et Al)


At 23:48 -0500 30-11-2005, John Baker wrote:
> If 50%+ abstain from voting is the process automatically
> considered 'non-democratic'? Likewise, is the system
> non-democratic if 100% do turn out and a dictator is
> delegated with absolute power?  In both instances I
> would say the results are democratic. They may not be to
> everyone's liking but that is not the point of democracy.

John, and all

this was the core point of a long and harsh discussion
I held against Bruce and others here in the past.  They
wanted to change some WDDM rules by voting, and
claimed the decision would have been a democratic one
because voted by the majority of the WDDM members -
a dozen at that time.  I retained that the decision was
undemocratic because it had to deal with a Worldwide
Democracy and a dozen only of  people were too few
in order to decide for the remaining Worldwide populace.

Now; as in your above examples: I agree with you, that
in both instances the results are democratic. But those
would be the results of a poor democracy.  I guess: is it
that, the Democracy we are looking at?


> I believe trying to insure a suitable NMT must be in
> place before advocating DD displays a distrust of
> DD in general and probably does not belong on a DD
> advocacy group.

Again, I agree with you, that getting the people into being
ruled by a dictator having been democratically elected by
the people as their Representative, would be a democratic
results.  But this would be the very results of  a "Ruling by
Representatives" Democracy (RD).  Direct Democracy
(DD) is another kettle of fish, and I'm looking forwards to
seeing the people changing their RD Manner of  Thinking
into a New Manner of  Thinking, namely, a DD NMT.

Don't you?

Regards, antonio






 
----- Original Message -----
From: Antonio Rossin
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Cc: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com ; epistemology(at)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Epistemological Revolution (Chris et Al)


Well said, Chris.


But democracy, in each country, is a matter of voters' percentage.


What about, then if a country's majority abdicate to their right-duty
of verifying policies-proposals-social theories, and delegate some
representative authority of their own for this verifying task? Leading
to a collective practice to be consequently followed ?


It does not matter if such a representative authority is a religious
or a scientific or a political one.  What matters, it is that such a
practice is substantially undemocratic, and the (epistemological)
procedure leading to it must be exposed, if we wanted to defeat
the current Representative Democracy people's majority in a
given country (perhaps not in yours).




Regards,  antonio











On 11/29/05, chris redmond <redmond(at)easy.com> wrote:
what has all this epistomological b*****ks got to do with trying to
arrest power from elites, and place it into the hands of ordinary
folk.

once power has been in the hands of ordinary folk, for several
centuries, everybody will be able to consider such erudite and
abstract conjecture.  right now, after millenia of elitism, the vast
majority of people would have no conception of the type of ideas you
guys are wasting your time on, being born, and maintained in such
conditions as to provide labor for the priviledged -nothing more.

you say feedback welcome.  can i suggest that the wddm concentrate
it's efforts and communications on specific practical steps re direct
democratic administration, and leave this kind of rubbish for those
who are also comfortable with equally irrelevant and inappropriate
forms of government.
cheers,

chris


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