| From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 3 Jun 2007 06:39:42 -0500 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Facets of Truth |
Dear PVR and WDDM
I realize your intent is good and you think your ideas would
work. However, the fact that you do not
know why this is an Organization indicates why it should be one. The WDDM
Organization would clearly define it's objectives, membership qualifications,
process of discussion and election (Charter).
An Association is generally a group of people who have no
agenda, no goal or aim, they simply discuss things and go on from there. This
is what CICDD is and serves the DD
community well.
WDDM had membership criteria and very basic goals of what it
intended to do. It was formed around the Swiss model of Initiative and Binding
Referendum. WDDM realized that for the people to "control" government they
would have to interact with government, as if government were a business the
people were running.
The people would have the responsibility to set the
direction, the work to be done and than monitor it to be sure it were done.
This can be done with I&R however it does require the people to be
organized enough to be able to come together with a unified and agreed upon
Initiative. This requires a bit of discussion and argument. It also requires a
process to make decisions (vote).
Than of course this work to be done must be assigned to some
people to do within the government. Of course the people could hire the street
sweepers, the police and road crew directly but it seems better to elect people to administer and oversee this
government work. These elected people would represent the people, and would
make sure the peoples directions were completed in orderly and accountable
manner. These representatives would provide reports to the people documenting
these accomplishments and any problems needing resolution. The people would
have to appraise this information and respond accordingly. Likely this could
all be accomplished with a referendum once or twice a year.
WDDM, being an organized Organization, it would have
membership requirements fitting WDDM and people of a different idea would simply
not join.
As an Organization with specified principles and standards, if
the WDDM Organization endorsed something
or stood strong for a resolution others would soon know the value of WDDM
endorsement.
Now I will answer in your text:
Dear Bruce,
Certainly I was not trying to get rid of anyone. I appreciate the difficulties
faced by WDDM all these years to keep going. What I wish is that the WDDM
should reach its goal successfully. We are all united in the spirit of true
democracy; our apparent differences are only with regard to charting out the
means.
I feel that being an association would be advantageous to WDDM, rather than
being an organization. The difference between the two is well described by Ben
Clayson (found in the archives).
Bruce- It is
Bernard Clayson and we were great friends at one time. Unfortunately his
views and mine contradicted. A loose association has no credibility as it
refocuses itself with each new member. Soon it is going in many directions, lost
in a sea of ideas and ideals unrealistic to reality.
PVR- An association of equals would be attractive to
everyone to take part in the proceedings. In case we need to decide on a
particular course of action every member can cast his vote with the assurance
that his vote carries the same weightage as every other vote (isn't this an
example of the spirit of Direct Democracy?).
Bruce- How can you
cast a vote? Do you have an established voting procedure?
PVR- Having an organization of elected office bearers would make WDDM
vulnerable to official action, in case it is perceived to be anti-establishment
(this perception will be inevitable at some point of time). Being an
internet based association where everyone is equal will make it immune to any
such possibility. There is no need to register WDDM at all. The cost of
maintaining the web-site can be met internally.
Bruce- On the contrary, simply having a Website identifies
us as a group. This opens us to tax and other liabilities. If we were this
loose group, undefined, we could be vulnerable to what you are suggesting. For
instance, as WDDM Organization, established to educate people about DD we can
claim that the information we post and send is exempt from copy write (in most
cases) because it is for educational purposes. (Specified in the Charter)
We could also solicit funds, possibly under a non profit org which
helps with cost as far as tax etc. [Yes, government is watching us] Please observe
that the cost of using the internet is slowly rising. More "corporations" are
involved and band width requirements increase the more popular the site. If we
indeed expand, this could be hundreds a month. Other costs, such as accounting
etc. would also come into play. We would also like to work with schools,
communities and provide literature and perhaps movies. Media too must be
involved to "get the message out". This of course all gets costly. We are
fortunate Mirek has been doing all the work however people should be
compensated for their work. They have family's and obligations. So our creating
an Organization is necessary in order to survive in the long haul.
In your other post you mention: PVR- "The current definition of DD is well
expressed in initiatives like that of Nicole Durand, Echarp's variation of it,
Roy Daine's myverdict, and the canadian initiative. Our in-built repulsion to
authoritarianism and our earning for individual freedom is the basic
motivation. But we need to keep the ultimate goal of taking on the political
space while integrating these ideas into our mission since otherwise we will
remain merely a discussion forum and nothing more. I think we should first
decide on how we are going to take on the political parties on ground and check
whether whatever we do is in line with this final goal."
Bruce- The above are excellent and necessary software
programs for the people to develop the Initiatives they intend to submit to the
government for Referendum. What WDDM does is assist in development of the
programs necessary for the people to communicate with and interact with the
government. This is done by educational means and by suggestions as well as examples
of successful methods other governments have used. An Initiative is useless
unless the people have negotiated with government to accept the Initiative and
accept the conclusion of the Referendum.
PVR- I hope that my suggestions are taken in the right spirit. I am sorry if I
have hurt the feelings of Mark, George and Nicole.
PVR
Please, we are simply discussing a difficult topic. I present my views and you yours. The community will decide what the community chooses. Bruce
Dear all,
Everyone of us is unique and each one of our opinions is a facet of truth. Also each one of us has our predilections, our pet ideas. Nothing wrong with that since it forms the motivation for our action. About my suggestion for redefining DD, it was aimed at being action-oriented and taking on the world wide network of so-called democracy in the present form. I agree with Mirek that it represents only a intermediate stage in our final goal of True Democracy, however theoretical it may sound.
Mark has declared that he is a stickler for constitutionalism. This is essential in an organization. But emphasis on this aspect in a group like WDDM would convert it into one more political party at a global level. We need a dynamic association to enter the political space instead of being bogged down by organizational matters.
The current definition of DD is well expressed in initiatives like that of Nicole Durand, Echarp's variation of it, Roy Daine's myverdict, and the canadian initiative. Our in-built repulsion to authoritarianism and our earning for individual freedom is the basic motivation. But we need to keep the ultimate goal of taking on the political space while integrating these ideas into our mission since otherwise we will remain merely a discussion forum and nothing more. I think we should first decide on how we are going to take on the political parties on ground and check whether whatever we do is in line with this final goal.
The very fact that only a handful of members are discussing indicates that presently WDDM is not attractive for open discussion. The formation of the executive board is a damper. Mirek's suggestion that it is meant for carrying out decisions made by members is appropriate. Since we are in a preliminary stage, may be the present board should be dissolved and a new board elected, if needed, in the future. The WDDM charter needs to be modified appropriately.
PVR