[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01347: Re:The National Initiative for Democracy

From: "Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:35:33 +1000
Subject: Re:The National Initiative for Democracy

Bruce, have you seen The National Initiative for Democracy being promoted by Mike Gravel at http://ni4d.us/ ,with Mike Gravels talk about people empowerment must have raised the profile of our causes.
With the Swish system could the people call a referendum that what force their troops home from a conflict ? 
With the Swish referendums it is only voluntary vote is this correct?
Is there a minimum number that has to vote to be declared a success ?

Cheers Martin Jackson
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

Pity you only want control. With  no procedure to do it and your refusal to discuss processes knowledgeable community members have developed, you will fail.
Bruce

On 7/19/07, Antonio Rossin wrote:


Bruce Eggum ha scritto:
> The issue is government. Let us discuss the processes which have been
> presented on government. If you disagree or agree please explain why.
> Perhaps if we analyze government instead of each other we can be on
> to much better things.

(ant)
I disagree.  The issue is control.  Which in its turn requires knowledge.
Which in its turn requires open dialectical discussion on everything.

As for myself, I don't care very much for what the government could be,
provided only the utmost amount of acknowledged people can, and want
to, control it directly - eg., via I&R - in what is called Democracy.

antonio





>
> I snip and comment on Georges Shadow Government. Mu opinion. (no i
> ain't humble, and i ain't seen many 'round here who were.)
>
> Georges Shadow Government, a different name but same process.
>
>
> Snapshot I&R    What is snapshot I&R?
>
> Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
>
> in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
>
> of Particracy against the true DD.
>
>
>
> Bruce shakes his head ???????????????????? huh?
>
>
>
> Einstein's assertion:
>
>
>
> "A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."
>
>
>
> A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
>
> emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by
>
> established governance, media, education and religions.
>
>
>
> But than Georges says:
>
> That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
>
> Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms
>
> as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment
>
> and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct
>
> Democracy.
>
>
>
> Bruce states: So, you add all the dogmatic academic crap and we are
> back to zero!
>
>
>
> Initiative and BINDING Referendum preceded by discussion, evaluation,
> is certainly not a "snapshot". Certainly many things go into the
> choices people make, much of which is uncontrollable. Media will
> always have an impact. People must trust less and examine closer.
> Lessons, some are hard. But lessons do come. The I&Br Process = Idea,
> discussion, initiative presented, more discussion, perhaps amended,
> initiative accepted (or rejected), presented for referendum (more
> discussion) Binding Referendum pass or fail.
>
>
>
> I&BR could be the tool for people to install a government they could
> control. Control is where the power is.
>
>
>
>  A massive infrastructure is needed to administrate a large country.
> If these people running government were given only administrative
> power, they would have to do what the people commanded. Elected
> administrators, recallable at any time.
>
>
>
> Shadow government could than be brought in totally. It would be the
> process of the people deciding what commands to give the administrators.
>
>
>
> Now, we have many good software programs which could help the people
> in their deliberations. This of course must be done totally outside of
> the government infrastructure.
>
> This is what WDDM began to do, than was stopped by to many wanting to
> do it their way rather than coming to a WDDM Community decision. That
> is why WDDM has been trying to develop it's own infrastructure, so it
> could proceed on it's goal to provide information on Initiative and
> Referendum which the people could use to take over control of their
> own community government.
>
> Until people see they really can have control and what steps they must
> take to gain control, they will do nothing. That is the clinker,
> nobody can do it for the people, the people must do it themselves. But
> they must understand what must be done and have some belief the
> process will work. Thus a massive sales /education process is
> necessary using  video, recordings, phone messages, websites, email,
> all of it. Not telling anyone what to do, but that they CAN!
>
> This email list gossiping gets nowhere. Let us take this to WDDM Forum
> and proceed. Just go to WDDM.org and sign in. If you need help with
> passwords the help is there or email Mirek.
>
> Georges you will love it. It is a FORUM!
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
>
> On 7/19/07, Antonio Rossin
> wrote:
>
>
>     Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
>     > Antonio Rossin wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Well, I remember very well your insulting violence
>     >> in rejecting any antithesis to your theses as "prattle,
>     >> meaningless asininity, bullshit" and alike pleasantries.
>     >
>     > Antonio,
>     > you are a neurologist and no one better than you can let me
>     > understand what's happening in Georges' mind. I repeatedly
>     > read his insults and contempt toward anyone who disagree
>     > with his ideas. Then i read this:
>     >
>     > "1.I don't write TO PEOPLE, but ABOUT their massages.
>     > I'm probably the only person on this list who does not write
>     > ad personam. If it happened once or twice, show me where
>     > and I appologize in advance."
>     >
>     http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&
>     < http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&>
>     >
>     > What do you think?
>     >
>     > Regards
>     >
>     > Giorgio
>     >
>     >
>     Giorgio,
>
>     In my humble opinion -- but also in my past experience
>     as a psychiatry practitioner -- it is a matter of one's brain
>     hemispheres working together to process some thinking
>     line.  The question is, re to a given input-idea-argument,
>     do the two brain hemispheres co-operate together in good
>     balance, or there is a strong, possibly absolute dominance
>     of one hemisphere over the other?
>
>     This question is intriguing.
>
>     In the past, we have been told about a "mono-cameral
>     mind" which, along with the evolution of  humankind,
>     is being slowly substituted by some "bi-cameral mind".
>
>     Let's suppose, humankind is still evolving from the
>     "one hemisphere only!" individual's manner to process
>     his-her believing-behaving procedures, towards some
>     "both hemispheres working together in good balance"
>     manner of thinking and behaving.
>
>     More recently we have been told by some "Shumacher
>     Society" that there are two different attitudes of  human
>     mind: the "*either/or*" one (which I would call "*either* one
>     *or* the other brain hemisphere!") and the "*and - and*" one
>     (which corresponds to what I would call "*and* one *and* the
>     other brain hemisphere tied together in a good balance").
>
>     Now, let me recall, it is not that us humans are so rigidly
>     divided into two strictly defined categories, the *either/or*
>     and the *and-and*.  There can be tendencies, nuances and
>     different inputs-ideas-arguments that can be processed as
>     well within one's thinking machine (AKA Logics) in this
>     or that ways -- likely enough, with the only exception of
>     the religious fundamentalist, whose mind is able to perform
>     the either/or manner of thinking-behaving exclusively, for
>     any input-idea-argument.
>
>     Practically, the "either-or" mind is far more precise than the
>     "and-and" one.  The "either-or" minded people don't bear
>     uncertainty, but absolute ( i.e. unquestionable) truth only.
>     Equally, the "either-or" minded one does not bear dialectics
>     (which implies antitheses to one's theses as a methodology)
>     nor being questioned-criticized.
>
>     A question arises: is the scientific fundamentalist similar
>     to the religious fundamentalist?  I think it is, depending on
>     how the scientist behaves, i.e. performs science : whether
>     for the sake of the (absolute) scientific truth -- or for the
>     sake of  those of us who will follow, to wit, our children.
>
>     Clearly, the religious fundamentalist behaves for the sake
>     of  God, regardlessly for their children 's life.
>
>     Also, fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
>     matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if the
>     fundamentalist claims it is.
>
>
>     However, I must remark, these different characters of
>     human mind do not present in a "pure" form", even.
>     The "either/or" and the "and-and" traits of the human
>     mind represent the opposite poles of a continuum with
>     countless intermediate positions, although each one of
>     us (our esteemed George Metanomski included) cannot
>     but tend towards either one or the other of these opposite
>     polarities...
>
>
>     Hoping this helps,
>
>     antonio
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Eggum
> Gresham Wisconsin, USA
> http://www.doinggovernment.com/ < http://www.doinggovernment.com/>
> Check out my Blog too
> http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
>
>
>  


--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA, www.doinggovernment.com; Check out my Blog too: bruceeggum.blogster.com

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]