To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:00 PM
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, Bruce
On 5/25/07,
Doug
Everingham
wrote:
Sorry,
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
]
...
--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham
Wisconsin, USA
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check
out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/