Dear all,
it seems that the term "sirect democracy" is rather
wague for many participants of this discussion. It would be better to discuss
concrete models of political systems based on this idea. During the years, I
have published several such models in my newsletter. Among model builders are
Lee, Bernard, George Sagi, Prof.Becker, myself.... Recently, Prof.Behrouzi has
published two important books on the subject in the USA. So let´s be
concrete!
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:56
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Anarchy
do not mix? Dear Richard, The term Anarchy was given with accepted
definitions. It is contrary to democracy by those definitions. This was not a
divisive game, it is reality. Bruce
On 1/27/07, Richard
Moore
wrote:
I
reject this 'do not mix' thesis.
We all want direct
democracy! Some people believe direct democracy can be
achieved by means of some kind of voting paradigm, perhaps even under the
current political system. Some of us disagree, but it is still direct
democracy that we want to achieve. I never use the label 'anarchism'
myself and I resent it being brought in as divisive tool.
I think
it would be productive if people would be willing to enter into an
open-minded discussion of 'what would direct democracy look like?'.
Instead of trying to shut down the opposition, let's listen to one
another.
best wishes to all, richard
-- Bruce Eggum Gresham Wisconsin, USA Urge to
Surge http://tinyurl.com/yndynn http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
|