Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>]

Georges,

One of your previous posts mentioned the three functions(and I'm going to paraphrase here) -

The group arrives at a decision when the consensus reaches some pre-determined threshold.

I take this to mean 'a majority decision'.

Let's accept that it is arrived at after suitable debate. I use the term 'suitable debate' to include all the terminology you've previously expressed.

Where you say the group, 'which may be considered as its own parliament', I used the term 'its own government'.

When they came to a unanimous consensus, they established a 'rule'. Whether they were bound by that rule is irrelevant, they still established a rule that would in another circumstance, with a different group, become a law.

When we consider majority and minority in a democracy, they are obviously in disagreement. The will of the majority however, decides the 'rule'. A minority in a stable democracy is duty bound to accept the rule, decided according to the will of the majority. Otherwise that democracy collapses and the will of the strongest becomes the rule.

While your example group may have been able to reach a unanimous consensus, on one issue and your experiences of kibbutzism have shown examples of unanimous consensus on some issues, I will not accept that this is generally the case across the countries of the world.

It does not conform to human nature, which has self-interest high in the list of its traits. Extreme altruism is the preserve of a few.

And now I see a flaw. Rather than edit the above, I'll leave it so you can envision my train of thought.

I have been guilty of equating majorities with consensus.

Without going into detailed definitions, or axioms, I equate DD as power vested in the people. I consider that DDs, as I would envision them, would reach decisions according to the will of the majority.

Further, I would now class kibbutzism, as a Deliberative Democracy, where decisions are based upon consensus. More properly, since power is still vested in the people, Direct Deliberative Democracy.

Another flaw.

I have also considered that democracy is based on majorities, which would leave out kibbutzism. Yet that does not seem right.

I therefore have to conclude that, in any discussions on the nature of democracy, direct or otherwise, it is necessary for each individual to define what he/she means by the terms and for each to accept a definition for the extent of the discussion.

The definition would not have to be the same for every discussion but should be clearly stated and understood by all, if any discussion is to be meaningful.

I have not devastated any part of the planet and am not making billions starve.

I don't know if I can be convinced of your assertions re meat-eating but you're welcome to give it a shot.

Roy

Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> I must be even more stupid than I thought and did not
> succeed to convey a single of my ideas. You talk about
> some things, doubtless interesting, but having nothing
> to do with what I tried and failed to express.
> I'll comment here and there inline without much hope
> to make myself understood.
> Georges.
>
> --- ROY DAINE <RDAINE(at)BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
> > The group, like a kibbutz, by functioning as a
> > direct democracy, was its own government. Anything
> > they agreed to, by majority, which was accepted by
> > the minority, became the rule. Regardless of the
> > size of the group.
> >
> > I consider that any society is free to decide what
> > issues they consider to be the province of majority
> > vote. ie. Their government.
> ================
> G:
> I never talked about "government" which denotes the
> executive and has nothing to do with DD, dealing
> exclusively with the legislative, which may, or may
> not, have a whim to delegate parts of its power to
> a "government".
>
> In my example, the group, which may be considered as
> its own parliament, reached, after deep and longish
> inquiry, the unanimous consensus about animal breeding
> for human consumption, viz. that it is the most
> noxious planetary polluter and the cause
>  of starvation
> of billions. There was no question of diet, but
> unanimous refusal to contribute to these global
> disasters. No minority, no majority but freely
> made individual choice shared by all. And certainly
> no oppression, as everybody did what he found himself
> to be right.
>
> Actually, important decisions are made in kibbutzim
> unanimously. I saw also apparently surprising cases,
> which might be called "oppression par minority".
> For example, a kibbutz counted 20% religious members,
> who absolutely insisted on kashrut.
> For 80% kashrut was a nuisance, but a bearable one.
> The decision process considered not only how many
> prefer, but how important it is for them. The majority
> accepted a bearable nuisance in order not to lose
> the 20% who were good friends and would have to quit
> the non-kosher kibbutz.
>
> So, I skip your assertions about oppression, which,
> albeit convincing as such, don't apply to our case
> and pass
>  to a statement, which disturbs me a bit.
> ================
> > The fact that you may be able to provide rigorous,
> > scientific proof that meat-eating is in some way
> > bad, for some parts, of some populations, is
> > irrelevant to me. I would still consider it
> > oppressive.
>
> > I would still not want to be part of that society.
> ===============
> G:
> If devastating the planet and making billions starve
> is irrelevant to you, it's this society that would
> not want you.
>
> Georges.
> =================



Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.