|
Eric,the comments you made were very
good,
What are the keys to the power
elite.
- Their control of the executive powers of countries
- Having front people and groups e.g. Royals, Presidents, The Pope,
Religions and Politicians and while they do the business in secret behind
the scenes.
- Controlling the press that feed into peoples minds
- The Mastering of mind control
- The use of a scents of magic and deception to sell something to the
public
- Ensure they crush and get rid of heretics,free thinking and liberal
minded people
Don Veitch and John Seale said that there have been 3 revolution
of the world.
- Mass agriculture
- Inductrial revolution
- Mass communications revolution (the world wide wed)
The third is our great hope.
- We need to make the internet the prefferred place where people get
their information,not the television
- We need to development a media, that caters to the average person in all
countries
- We need to use the likes of You Tube,My Space and so on to sell our
message.
We need need define who are the good groups of society and join
forces.
There are good people out there that have money and some power,we need to
define who they are.
60% of society do no like violence's, that is why violence's it
planted in people's protests.
Recently in Australia our parliament,they had a conscience vote on a topic,
a poll after it, found that over 80% thought the conscience vote was a good
thing.
I believe as Ricardo Semler found out, when people have been program,
and it takes awhile to bring out openness in people ,belief in their right
to have free speech,Semler found that once people did start to talk there was no
stopping them,people will need some leading to direct democracy.
It is hard to break habits within people,and some personalities will never
like it direct democracy.
I believe that some measure should be developed that rewards the
best national for the year, a public vote to decide,cannot vote for own
nation.
An
Example
Key measures weighted to countries
size.
The total value of all land,property &
businesses
The personal & business saving
Known resources
Reserves
of items and materials
The debts of the
nation
Employment
Health
Income
Education
Condition of
environment
Living Standards
Home & Property ownership
Relationships with other
nations
Fair trading with other nations
Human freedom and rights
I have enjoyed the recent comments by all and can see we are heading in a
positive direction,we will have some hurdles to get over,but l believe we have
people in this movement with their heads and hearts in the right place.
Some of the final parts of whatever system we propose, should be
finalised by the people,what they would like to vote on and what our
representatives should look after,and how many time they would vote per
year.
Cheers
Martin Jackson
P.S.Bruce you might enjoy this,PINK-DEAR MR. PRESIDENT-MIKE GRAVEL`s
MySpace Song
~----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:58
AM
Subject: [WDDM] Achieving True Democracy
200705-01
Dear PVR, Mark & Filia
Thank you, PVR, for starting this exchange of views and ideas on
how to achieve true democracy.
First of all, the People's Constitution is not just "to truly reflect the
people's opinion on how governance should be ...". It should be the Will of
the People that governs the political, legal and social systems of
the country.
No, our main and immediate battle is not with the political parties. It
is to establish a community that develops and runs on true (as opposed to
existing false) democractic principles. A thriving and growing true democracy
community will demonstrate to the ordinary people what is true democracy, what
are its benefits, and that it provides a far superior political system or
governance that upholds their interests as the real owners of the
country.
Moreover, such a community would be able to provide the material,
intellectual and other resources for the promotion of true democracy on an
ever increasing and sophisticated scale and eventually when there is support
from the majority of the people we would have the first true democracy in the
world.
Political parties have in themselves full of contradictions and
weaknesses. We shall study these contradictions and weaknesses carefully
and use them against the political parties. For instance, we can set one
political party against another.
In the final analysis, what really matters is that the true democracy
principles we develop must not only be relevant to the lives of the
ordinary people, but also be potentially tremendously beneficial to them.
It is only in this way that it could win over the hearts and minds of the
majority of the people from the existing political system.
When increasing number of people are won over to true democracy and when
they give their least preference to election candidates from the political
parties, increasing number of existing politicians sensing "a new political
trend" would dump their political parties to be independent candidates to
boost their electoral chances. In such an event, the obsolescence of the
political party will become inevitable.
So the question is how do we develop true democracy principles and
practices that could win over the majority of the people? The
starting main battle is with ourselves, not against each other, but
against the undemocratic forces that has enslaved our souls.
Real-life meetings are useful for those who are able to attend,
especially for people from the same locality or region. They do help to
advance bonding, friendship, understanding and, perhaps, trust.
WDDM as a whole is globally orientated and a cyberspace
community of politically aware people. It is best it leverages on available
information technologies to enable it to evolve into, perhaps, the first true
democracy community albeit cyber with a global reach.
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
<vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Eric Lim and all,
You have suggested that we need a 'people's
constitution' to truly reflect the people's opinion on how governance should
be and to end the present virtual 'rule' by representatives. Agreed. But how
are we going to make this happen unless we are going to occupy the political
space by taking on the political parties through a workable strategy? And
political space (lying within the collective consciousness of people) is
occupied in modern times by contesting in elections. Hence our mission
statement should be tailored keeping this in focus.
Dough Everingham
in his e-mail has suggested we need to oppose political parties like we
oppose so many other undesirable groups. But that is not enough to occupy
political space. We need to directly take on them and allow the people to
decide and choose between the same old kind of party politics or a new kind
of politics where they are able to participate in matters of governance more
genuinely.
PVR
On Thu, 24 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote
:
>Dear PVR and Mark,
>
> Yes, having read some of
your emails, I am too convinced that we do share many points of
agreement.
>
> Yes, we are seeking for a system of
government where elected and other representatives of the people would be
constitutionally bound to serve the people. To this end, we need a People's
Constitution to replace the current one written by the representatives for
the representatives. The key provisions in the People's Constitution are
what we have to develop and eventually to have the people's endorsement.
Yes, this is a very long journey indeed.
>
> However, we
should not be limited by the principles and practices of existing politcal
system which effectively makes the people's elected representatives rulers
over the people. We are only limited by the people's needs for an effective
government and at any point of the time by the level of the people's
political maturity and resources for public affairs and by available
relevant secure technologies.
>
> "Government by
Representatives" in practice is little different from "Rule by
Representatives". What we actually want is "Goverment of the People, by the
People and for the People". And our aim is to make "Government by the
People, ..." a reality, and not for this critical concept being used as a
tool for deception or oppression.
>
> In this connection,
I see no objection to "Representatives in Government" who are bound by the
People's Constitution, if this is what you (PVR) have in
mind.
>
> Yes, Mark, the people in a true democracy have
the final say on all matters concerning the people and country, including
whether they need representatives in Government, but such representatives
must, at all times, remains agents or employees of the people, and never be
the people's rulers. Here the basic assumption is that a sovereign people
would want to remain sovereign.
>
> In this connection,
for the consitution to be the People's Constitution, it has to be discussed
by as many people as possible and when it is ready, it has to be actually
endorsed by not less than 50%+1 of the total eligible voters at the time of
the voting.
>
>
> Eric Lim
(lpc1998)
>
>
>
>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
<vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
> Dear
Eric,
>Thanks for your reply which further clarifies our view point,
which I emphasize, is identical. Representatives are elected to serve the
people and not rule the people. That is what they are supposed to do in a
true democracy. However the present day politicians, while campaigning
during elections, impress on the voters that they will serve the people to
the best of their ability. But once they are declared elected they undergo
transformation and start 'ruling' in the real sense of the
term.
>
>We need a system where the representatives stick to
their pre-election level of commitment to the voters. Addressing your
concern, perhaps 'government by representatives' would be a better term than
'rule by representatives'.
>
>PVR
>
>
>On Mon,
21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
> >Hi PVR,
> >
>
> No, I do not mean that we have independent representatives
elected "to rule with the consent of the governed". Representatives,
independent or otherwise, should not rule over the people because, in
democracy, it is the People who rule ("demo" = "People", "cracy" = "to
rule"). I.e the People are sovereign meaning that the People have the
ultimate powers in the country and therefore the People have the final say
on all matters concerning the people and country.
> >
>
> Representatives, elected or not, are mere agents or employees of
the People and, therefore, do not have the ultimate powers or the final
say.
> >
> > In the paragraph below quoted from my
previous email what I mean is that it is as nonsensical to talk about "to
rule with the consent of the governed" as to talk about "a sovereign People
being ruled by an individual or a gang of individuals":
> >
>
> "In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected to
serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the People who
are the true owners of the country are sovereign, they are the rulers. So
any talk of a sovereign People being ruled by an individual or a gang of
individuals is simply nonsensical. So, in this context, is the _expression_
"to rule with the consent of the governed"."
> >
>
>
> > The matter you have to clarify now is whether
representatives are elected or appointed to rule over the people or to serve
the people. In the former (to rule over the people), the representatives
while in office as rulers hold the ultimate powers in the country and have
the final say on all matters concerning the people and the country, while in
the latter (to serve the people), the representatives are mere agents or
employees of the people who could, at any time, hire or fire them (the
respresentatives) from the jobs of serving the people.
> >
>
> If what you have meant is the latter, then for the
avoidance of confusion, the phrase, "the rule by representatives" should be
abandoned as it does not mean what you have in mind.
> >
>
> Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> >
> >
>
>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >I totally agree with
what Eric Lim has stated but unfortunately what I have stated earlier seems
to be have been misunderstood. By 'rule by representatives' I meant what
Eric has in mind - 'rule with the consent of the governed'. I am totally
against party politics. But I feel that we still need to elect our
representatives - all of them as independents - free from any party
obligations. This will ensure that we will have a partyless mechanism within
the elected house to carry out the business.
> >
> >On the
other hand Mark as well as many advocating DD are totally against having
anything to do with representatives. Jiri Polak's formulation of semi-direct
democracy also does not fit into it. Mark, kindly clarify further. Whatever
be our differences regarding the nomenclature, we are united in the spirit
of ushering in a truer democracy and ending the pseudo-democracy that is
prevalent. However differences have to be sorted out to formulate a workable
action plan.
> >
> >Mirek, answering your concern: What I
meant was that we do need to put our trust on representatives who are
independents, free from party obligations, assuming that the partyless
mechanism within the elected house would enable them to act according to
their conscience. It is still possible that some may get elected as
independents and after that behave in a partisan manner favouring a
particular political party (kept out of bounds from the elected house) or
group. The press and other pressure groups would expose such deviations and
the voters can always recall them.
> >
> >PVR
>
>
> >
> >On Mon, 21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
>
> >PVR,
> > >
> > > It appears to me
that there is some confusion over the words, "rule by representatives" as
used by you. Would you please clarify what you actually meant by
them.
> > >
> > > In Direct or True Democracy,
representatives could be elected to serve, but never to rule over the
electors or voters. When the People who are the true owners of the country
are sovereign, they are the rulers. So any talk of a sovereign People being
ruled by an individual or a gang of individuals is simply nonsensical. So,
in this context, is the _expression_ "to rule with the consent of the
governed".
> > >
> > > This would constitute a
clean break from the present form of corrupted "democracy" which is, in
fact, the Rule by Representatives (or "Reprocracy"). In many of the
"democracies" of our days, through a legal, but often dishonest process,
bosses of organised gangs known as political parties claim the right to rule
over the people for a fixed, but renewable terms of usually 4 to 6 years
with some having unlimited renewability.
> > >
> >
> Party politics everywhere is clearly evil, but is it a necessity?
You seem to believe in the necessity of party politics. I would concede that
it was perhaps a necessity before the Information Age. But we are now at the
dawn of the information Age which by abolishing geographical distances in
the area of individual communication makes true democracy a highly
realisable possibility.
> > >
> > > And with
true democracy, party politics would become obsolete when the People develop
the means to elect truely their own representatives to serve the people and
the country and not the representatives of politcal party bosses to serve
such bosses and their sponsors.
> > >
> > >
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> > >
> > >
> > >"M.
Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org> wrote:
> > > Hi
all,
> > >I completely agree with Mark.
> >
>
> > >PVR,
> > >I must say that I am somewhat
puzzled by your suggestion. I do not
> > >see how it fits with
your proposal on transition to "Partyless
> > >Governance
mechanism" from our previous private conversation?
> > >
>
> >Mirek
> > >
> > >Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear
Mark,
> > > > Thanks for your reply. You have stated that 'We
don't want to be
> > > > governed. We want to move from
representative democracy to direct
> > > > democracy'. This
position is due to utter frustration with the present
> > > >
form of representative democracy. By taking this position we will be
>
> > > aiming at a near impossible goal.
> > >
>
> > > > Besides don't we put our trust in our parents
and others close to us
> > > > in day to day life, to take
care of our concerns? Without some degree
> > > > of trust
nothing is possible in our life. We need to improve our
> > >
> system so that our trust is not misused by the unscrupulous.
>
> > >
> > > > PVR
> > > >
>
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 20 May 2007 Mark Antell,editor
CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote :
> > > > >Hi PVR,
>
> > > >
> > > > >You've stated a position
clearly: "We need to put our trust into
> > > > somebody to
take care of our concerns."
> > > > >
> > >
> >I disagree with that position. And I think that most of us in
WDDM
> > > > disagree with that position.
> > >
> >
> > > > >We don't want to be governed. We want
to move from representative
> > > > democracy to direct
democracy.
> > > > >Mark
> > > >
>
> > > > >PS. Yours is a legitimate, honest, and
widely held position. Though
> > > > I disagree with what you
say, I'll defend your right to say it.
> > > > >
>
> > > >-----------------------
> > > >
>
> > > > >Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > >>Dear All,
> >
> > >>Continuing from my previous letter, an important matter to
be
> > > > decided before we formulate a mission statement is
to decide whether
> > > > by aiming at Direct Democracy, we
are doing away with the concept of
> > > > 'rule by
representatives'. This particular view is held by some
> > >
> advocates of DD. While this may be the ideal theoretical goal, it
may
> > > > be nearly impossible in practice. We need to put
our trust into
> > > > somebody to take care of our concerns.
This is the natural order of
> > > > things in life. What we
need is to have a mechanism where our
> > > > representatives
are directly accountable to the people and can be
> > > >
recalled at any time if sufficient people feel so. I request that
>
> > > members express their views regarding this since this is
important to
> > > > formulate a workable mission
statement.
> > > > >>
> > > >
>>PVR
> > > > >>
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> >God Bless us all
>
>
>
|