| From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 26 May 2007 22:00:51 -0500 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Fwd: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373 |
Dear Doug and group,
I have been following sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com for
over six months and it is a very interesting useful model of discussion. There
are many tools of democracy like the citizen juries, problem solving task forces, and other NGO functions
which could use Sociocracy. Sociocracy
requires one Aim per group. A group is made up of nine people, than that group
appoints another group which is subservient to the first group and so on.
The first decision is to have an AIM. The group must agree
so they have the same thinking on this matter. How can such a group have an Aim
allowing abortion, when half the population is addamentaly against it? Would you than have another group with the Aim banning abortion? Or of
Peace, when half the population wants War? Or half wants National Health Care
and the other half wants Private Pay Health Care? If you collected most from
one group or the other it would not represent the population. If you had 50-50
how could you achieve consensus?
As pointed out in their news letter;
"Consent decision making
only works in a group of people who:
1. Share a common aim and
2. Can reflect together on how best to achieve that aim
3. The group consents to who is included in the group (and thus in
the decision making).
If these three conditions cannot be met, then majority vote or autocratic decision making works best."
Is eliminating someone from a group democratic?
Than there is the issue of Hierarchy. The "Lead" Group
dominates all (sub) other groups. Thus ten people dominate everyone. If a
member, ten groups down wants to change something, they must convince their
group, and each group on the way up. This is a bit time consuming.
I suggest that information which would provide both
arguments should be public and each person must make their own choice on a
ballot. This is the democratic model.
The work now progressing to develop a people's clearing house followed by a people's parliament model which would allow voting on each initiative before a binding referendum seems a good DD process. The difficulty seems always to have the necessary participation to actually be "democratic".
Kind Regards, BruceSorry, Bruce, I can't agree.
Far from it being "obvious" to me that "Sociocracy can NOT apply" to DD,
I see voting WITHOUT nested networks of stakeholders (e.g. as in
Sociocrac,
the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation etc., will be hijacked by
mmaffiaccs:
= media, military, admnistrative, financial, fundmentalist/fanatic,
industrial,
academic complexes, caels ad cabals}.
Quite obviously Sociocracy can NOT apply to WDDM
This also brings into question the whole "consensus" rational.
I think we need to stick with voting. (democracy)
Bruce
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com < sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com >
Date: 20 May 2007 09:58:31 -0000
Subject: [sociocracy] Digest Number 373
To: sociocracy(at)yahoogroups.com
Sociocracy
Messages In This Digest (4 Messages)
...
[cut by D E ]
...
Consent decision making only works in a group of people who:
1. Share a common aim and
2. Can reflect together on how best to achieve that aim
3. The group consents to who is included in the group (and thus in
the decision making).
If these three conditions cannot be met, then majority vote or
autocratic decision making works best.
...
[cut by D E ]
...