From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:34:05 +0200 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] WDDM Charter and up-coming meeting |
Jim, Plainly, you did not grasp the point. I have no detail to criticize, in Bruce's charter. I retain it is entirely ok. Well then? What I criticize, it is those of us (with Bruce as the champion) who believe that the people's "communities" are out of the WDDM door and eager for being equipped with a good democracy model, to be alloved to become a true Democracy. Subsequently, these simpletons present the problem of the worldwide lack of Direct Democracy as if it were a lack of a fitter DD charter exclusively. Even worse, by doing so they do deviate the people's attention from what the people themselves could do directly and responsibly by teir own, to what the leaders like to point out to them as a charter to follow. As for the English Democracy. I shall confess, after having posted that I was waiting for some lovers of formal democracy to jump out ad correct me: "Antonio, the English isn't a democracy! It is a United Kingsdom!" My point was, a couple of days ago I read in the newspaper that many English people took place against the big Water Supplying Corporate Companies, set up a Water Consumers' Company and got the control of the Water market. They did so because of the incoming shortage of whater supplies all over the world. Of course, they did not read this suggestion in any DD charter, but by doing so they performed DD. Another good example of DD at work, IMHO, it is the Homeschooling initiative mostly in the U.S. To summarize, the success of Democracy -- and of every similar problem involving people as a whole -- foresees two intervention levels: Level One: interventions on the offering of Democracy, like DD charters, DD laws, DD models etc. Let's call this, in short, "top-down" Level Two: interventions to increase the people's overall demand of a democratic social arrangement. Plainly, this kind of demand is a matter of basic education (family education) growing it from bottom up. ** Well now, to stick to te point: Direct Democracy, in everybody's experience, is unlikely to succeed if we were unable to make these two intervention levels match together. Don't you think so? Any contrary proof? As I read Bruce's words (below): "The officer's terms were due for new election and discussion about a definition of Direct Democracy caused much confusion in the WDDM group meeting the last couple years.", I couldn't resist. The confusion in the WDDM group was due to those guys (with Bruce as their champion) who managed to fix the "lack of Democracy" problem by being active at 'Level One' exclusively -- i.e., by managing to exclude the 'Level Two' issues away from the WDDM debate up to now. Just my two cents. Thanks, Jim, for having given me the opportunity for exposing a clearer and hopefully constructive criticism and - the same hopefully - for lessening the confusion in someone's head. Best regards antonio ** More on this 'Level Two' topic at: http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/common/Antonio.Lucknow.ppt --------------------- original msg ------------------ Jim Powell wrote:
|