Dear Roy and All, After all the thunder and lightening between you and Georges let me ask one simple question. What is it that an individual basically seeks in this world? It is fulfilment in life. His innermost core seeks bliss that is unchanging and everlasting. Whatever a person does is in tune with this goal. Material needs - he seeks. More than that he seeks spiritual fulfilment, whether he is aware of it or not. Even material needs are sought to give him the feeling of fulfilment. Many of us soon learn that most objects in this world give only temporary/superficial joy and we become interested in achieving more permanent forms of joy.
Now Democracy, if it is to be true should provide every individual with this most basic need of spiritual fulfilment. This can occur if the feelings of the people are taken into consideration in all matters of governance. Most people would be happy with this. Thus the criterion for Democracy need not be something objective like every person expressing and having a say. The axiomatic approach of Georges is objective. Finally what matters for the individual is his subjective fulfilment. Kibbutzim is an attempt in achieving fulfilment through cooperative living. However the article that Bruce quotes [http://www.solhaam.org/articles/kibbut.html] regarding Kibbutzim points out that it has been only a partial success. Many are feeling dissatisfied and are leaving it. When this is the case it is strange that Georges is so vehement about Kibbutzim being the ideal example for DD.
The information you have shared on Colorado is interesting. It would be instructive to know how exactly Initiative, Referendum and Recall became operational there. How long has it been there and how did people manage to make it a reality? Jim's analogy to employer and employee is a rhetoric to drive home the point that the present state of affairs is totally unacceptable.
Regards,
PVR
Dear Jim and PVR, I think it's time that everybody faced reality. Most of the contributors here seem obsessed with their own version of DD and how it should be implemented. I've probably been guilty of it myself. Let's rid ourself of the myth that Switzerland has the only model worth emulating. Take a look at the constitution of Colorado for example. They have Initiative. If 5% of the electorate support the initiative, it is put to a vote of the electorate within a specific time period, I think 21 days. If it is not put to the electorate within that time it automatically becomes law. Similarly with referendum. 5% of the electorate can cause anything decided by the government to be put before the people. They have Recall. Any town with 2000 residents can apply for home rule and be run according to its own charter. Any laws passed by the council supercede state law. The charter of Greenwood Village, a suburb of Denver, states that all candidates standing for election must be independant. It seems to me that there is a great deal of DD in Colorado. I totally disagree with Jim's insistance that - The basic rule is that the Politicians are the employees of the voters. This is simply not the case. In most democracies, we elect people to govern us. The analogy of employer and employee does not stand up to scrutiny. It is also apparent that a DD where the people make all the decisions is not going to happen. There are simply not enough people interested. I would suggest it is also unfeasible. I have heard no substantive argument against the idea that we need some form of representation. However if you think in terms of 'spokesmen', rather than 'representatives', it gives it a whole new flavour. If you then want your spokesmen to act on your behalf, you have to have some method of enforcement. You have to be able to tell your spokesman the majority view, which he can then represent. But if you don't tell him, you have to give him the power to make the decisions on your behalf. I have more to say but for now I'll await your response. Best Regards Roy