| From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:05:55 -0500 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [WDDM] Re: Conscience |
Dear PVR, WDDM,
I try to explain this a bit. WDDM does not have the Jurisdiction, the POWER to do anything except decide the infrastructure of how WDDM runs, what WDDM supports and how to do that. WDDM cannot install I&R outside itself, nor can it end party's.
PVR said: What I gather from your reply is that according to your perception WDDM cannot have the juridiction to urge people to make a move towards ushering in 'Partyless Governance' in their area whereas WDDM has the right to urge them to adopt I&R processes where ever they are. Isn't this a contradiction?
First, WDDM.Org has decided to support the process of I&R by providing information about I&R. WDDM members agreed on this when they joined WDDM initially. Thus WDDM Org. has democratically decided to support I&R. If another issue or item is to be supported by WDDM than an Initiative must be presented, it is discussed, and if the majority of WDDM agree it could then be supported. Since you posted your idea to WDDM it appeared to me you wanted discussion and that you may intend to post an Initiative to WDDM to support your party-less views. Until WDDM.org ratifies such an Initiative, WDDM cannot support the matter.
I apologize that this process is not clear on the WDDM Website.
When I speak it is simply my opinion. I certainly do not speak for WDDM, but my opinion is my view of established WDDM infrastructure. You stated your view on party's and I am stating mine. I believe to do anything with "Party's" the action must come within the "Jurisdiction" of that government. Thus Swiss would need to make their own non-party statue as would France or Germany take action within their own jurisdiction etc.
In the US party's are really "factions" and if you ended "party's" they would simply form a club, or ngo or whatever to raise funds for their pockets for re-election and join to support "pet" legislation . Really all you would do is change the name from republican party to republican club. They would still meet, raise money, join together on "pet" legislation, give money to their chosen few and support them for election. Mean while having grand affairs, dinning well etc. on some of the money collected.
So, in my view ending "party's" in the US would provide no meaningful change. I think each country needs I&Binding Referendum I&BR . Than they can take charge and make the changes necessary. Ending "party's" will not give the people any more power. If you can explain how getting rid of party's will in any way change government, please advise.
So I have been stating my personal view to the WDDM list, as you have. If you choose to post an Initiative to WDDM Forum asking WDDM to support your view, the discussion will have begun.
All the Best, BruceDear Bruce,
What I gather from your reply is that according to your perception WDDM cannot have the juridiction to urge people to make a move towards ushering in 'Partyless Governance' in their area whereas WDDM has the right to urge them to adopt I&R processes where ever they are. Isn't this a contradiction?
Another thing I want to say is that political parties everywhere are under the grip of money-power, though probably at a greater scale in the US. Whether it is the parliamentary system or the presidential system the struggle is finally between money-power acting through the political parties and the individual's sense of righteousness perceived as conscience.
It is Right Vs Wrong. Since most people believe in Right (majority of them remaining silent and praying) making conscience as the theme of WDDM would be the appropriate thing to do and thus ensure success in its endeavour. Kindly avoid repeating - PVR wants all WDDM to join him in ending "Party's".
With regards,
PVR
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 Bruce Eggum wrote :>
>Dear PVR WDDM,
>
>PVR said:
>
>{PVR} Elaborating on my previous post, a person can be said to have acted
>according to his/her conscience if what he thinks or does comes fom the
>heart and is thus beneficial as much to the people around him as to himself.
>
>(Bruce: ) I must agree, what is in the heart, is the persons attitude. This
>is perhaps the most important matter of developing a community, group or
>government based on "democracy". However not all the hearts are the same.
> From others perspective they believe what they think is right. (in their
>heart) If we did not have these difference's you and my all political
>representatives would believe as I do.
>
>Obviously there are many many ways to believe. Dictators in their "heart"
>believe they were sent to rule, saving us from ourselves. They join
>democratic institutions and dictate to them. (gbush)
>
>The US describes our democracy "of by and for the people". Of course we in
>the US realize we are a far cry from that ideal.
>
>Each group must define what their "democracy" is because there are so very
>many "meanings". This is why a "constitution" or "charter" is essential.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
>
>If our WDDM definition of democracy is: a group, community, nation where
>the people have ultimate power, than we could decide to develop this type
>democracy in WDDM. We can ONLY decide for WDDM however. We cannot decide
>anything for any other group, community or nation and certainly not the
>world.
>
>Jurisdiction must be noted. Jurisdiction is the area and extent that a group
>has the right to "control". This is often described geographically as well
>as "citizenship", the people who have "joined". Thus Amsterdam people could
>make a decision to tax Amsterdam citizens but this group does not have the
>"Jurisdiction" (power) to tax people in Slavonia.
>
>WDDM has no jurisdiction other than WDDM affairs such as the color of the
>WDDM web page, the WDDM Infrastructure rules of process etc. If WDDM decides
>to tell people who or what to vote for (By endorsing a candidate or party,)
>, WDDM is destroying democratic principles. If WDDM suggests things, sites
>and information to assist the people in making a decision themselves, than
>WDDM is acting democratically. To form a democracy I believe it is essential
>that the majority of the people have "democracy in their hearts" meaning
>that the majority seek the good of the group. not the individual. Than the
>democratic process allows each the right to have input (Initiatives) into
>their group and all members of the group together make decisions
>(referenda). Of course with all the different viewpoints no decision can be
>totally accepted. However using 50% + 1 as the means, the majority accept
>the decision. This is why it is important to have rules to respect and
>include minorities.
>
>Democracy is typical in a card club, a bowling league or any group where an
>idea is suggested, discussed and people agree by phone, raised hands, paper
>ballot etc. (referendum) Even a local community (town) often makes decisions
>this way.
>
>So it is essential that WDDM define its democracy, jurisdiction, and not
>exceed its jurisdiction. Obviously all groups (nations) are not the same and
>have different existing infrastructure.
>
>An example is "Parliament" which is different than US Congress, and each
>Parliament is different. PDR wants all WDDM to join him in ending "Party's".
>In Parliament structure, apparently party's are given power. It is the POWER
>of parties that make them dangerous in PDR's Parliament. Thus if PDR had I&R
>he and his community could Initiate law which would decrease that power.
>That action is within their jurisdiction.
>
>There will always be factions. Call them Party's or call them NGO's, unions,
>organizations. If they seek to alter the government, they are destroying the
>principles of Democracy. Party's in the US are different, it is money which
>gives them power and we US people must deal with that aspect. Our US Party's
>do destroy democracy, they want their way totally. (dominate, dictate)
>
>Keep it Simple, Bruce
>
>
>
>
>On 7/13/07, Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net <
>citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net> wrote:
>>
>> PVR,
>>
>>We've often not agreed on political theory. However, I agree with your
>>statement about conscience and the universality of conscience. I share a
>>couple of relevant quotations below:
>>
>>"We are caught in an inescapable mutuality tied in a single garment of
>>destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly." (M. L. King
>>Jr., *Letter from Birmingham Jail)*
>>(I believe that this statement means that turning ones head does not
>>diminish ones experience of the human condition but rather renders it
>>incomprehensible.)
>>
>>and
>>
>>"We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that." (Charlie
>>Chaplin, the Hope Speech in *The Great Dictator*.)
>>
>>Mark Antell
>>
>>------------------
>>
>>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dear Mirek and all,
>>We are all in the quest for a Truer Democracy. If there is no doubt about
>>this goal and if we are united in spirit regarding this goal then an
>>appropriate structure to achieve this goal should fall in place without
>>difficulty. Unfortunately while seeking to design a structure for a complex
>>task, the spirit itself is frequently forgotten and we tend to get lost in
>>complicated details.
>>
>>We need to have an open mind if an appropriate structure is to fall in
>>place. The basic problem with the prevailing kind of democracy is that it
>>seeks to limit itself within defined structures like political parties.
>>However good such a structure may be, once there is curbing of freedom of
>>_expression_, it soon degenerates into a manipulative mechanism. Still we need
>>a structure for deliberations. We need structures that allows _expression_ of
>>every human point of view and yet that _expression_ is self-regulated to fit
>>into the requirements of the society.
>>
>>We have such a self-regulating mechanism within each one of us and it is
>>called 'conscience'. Unfortunately this 'conscience' has nearly been
>>forgotten since we are preoccupied with the fancies and capabilities of the
>>mind. Conscience arises from the 'heart'. If all the affairs of the world
>>are based on conscience then life would be much simpler.
>>
>>The methods of DD like I&R allow _expression_ of the individual's
>>preference, but it is the individual's conscience that motivates him. We
>>need to recognize this basic point. Instead, the use of the word conscience
>>is almost a taboo in today's world and it is looked down upon as being
>>'moralistic'. On the other hand it is a basic reality of every person's
>>life. While WDDM has been trying to usher in I&R as a basic strategy, it
>>has in fact been advocatoing _expression_ of the individual's conscience in
>>matters of governance. The mechanism of 'partyless governance' that I have
>>been advocating, puts this conscience as the focalpoint to usher in truer
>>democracy.
>>
>>The world today is dangerously divided. In a way this is inevitable since
>>the world today is governed by structures designed by the dictates of the
>>mind. Even though ideas of different people differ widely, the basic
>>motivation arises from the individual's conscience. The heart of every
>>person basically seeks peace, love, justice and freedom. If the preferences
>>of the heart are allowed to express themselves through the consscience, then
>>it will achieve what it seeks. But the human tendency is to forget the heart
>>and become enslaved to the mind.
>>
>>If conscience-based politics is ushered in at the global level, then
>>instead of getting divided and more complicated, structures would be ushered
>>in that would tend to integrate the world and conflict resolution would be a
>>natural consequence.
>>
>>The WDDM in quest of Truer Democracy, should make concience-based politics
>>as its central theme. I hope members would agree on this broad philosophy.
>>It will be obvious that it will be inappropriate to put this proposal under
>>the existing procedural rule since it appeals to the heart rather than the
>>mind.
>>
>>I believe that the entire WDDM should be redesigned to allow _expression_ of
>>both the heart and the mind in that order.
>>
>>PVR
>>
>>
>
>-- Bruce Eggum
>Gresham Wisconsin, USA
>http://www.doinggovernment.com/
>Check out my Blog too
>http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
>
>
> vote