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

01933: Re: [WDDM] WDDM Charter and up-coming meeting

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:

Hi All,

I have to respond to Antonio

Bruce has put much effort into the new charter. I believe that this is a model that can be used as a reference for communities to develop DD. It is obvious Antonio, that this is developed in WDDM. If there are flaws within the proposal, constructive criticism on detail is the most appropriate not general destructive criticism. This sucks the energy and enthusiasm out of those who wish to make the world a better place. Bruce, I thank you for your efforts.

We owe a lot to the Swiss who have shown that DD works in the real world. Within Switzerland there are different levels of DD within municipalities and Cantons. It has been shown that the higher the level of DD, the more content is the population and the lower is the cost of administration.

As for the English Democracy. I was born in England and left at the age of 26. I go back regularly to visit family. Each time you get a snapshot to compare the differences. England is becoming a police state and, like America, is making the world more unsafe by draconian laws and even acting beyond these laws. Before I start another political frenzy, I reject both state terrorism and “other” terrorism. They feed off each other in a downward spiral of violence. England is sorely in need of a constitution to curb the excesses of government. It needs DD.

In 1975 I moved to South Africa. I was privileged to live through the changes up to 1994. Since then the country has enjoyed good growth but  


From: Antonio Rossin [rossin(at)tin.it]
Sent: 14 Sep 2008 04:41 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Cc: George L. Kokkas Law Office; cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WDDM] WDDM Charter and up-coming meeting


Hi,

To avoid silly confusions, let me precise that the substantial difference
between the Swiss method of Initiative and Binding Referendum and
any Bruce's "new" WDDM Charter stands in the simplest fact that the
Swiss method has been produced grassroots bottom-up by the Swiss
territory inhabitants -- i.e. final users, whom it is pretty functional to --
there where Bruce's "new" WDDM Charter has not.


Hoping this helps, cheers,

antonio

PS.
Do you know about the English Democracy -- which does function
pretty well too -- that it has produced no Constitutional Charter even?
(despite the nine centuries old Magna Charta, which is but a document
about the land ownership.)







Bruce Eggum wrote:

13 September, 2008

World Direct Democracy Movement

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.

A decision was taken to "write a new charter" and that was implemented. However, it failed to produce any action or decisions. The "Board" made no input, and their decisions would have to be approved by the entire WDDM membership  under the "new" Charter. This tight control proved to be unnecessary and unrealistic to actually accomplish anything. The idea of Initiative and Binding Referendum is that anyone who disagrees with a decision, such as the Board, has the opportunity to bring their points up to the membership and if others agree, the decision can be changed by referendum. It is a method whereby people have control of their governing body IF it is necessary. It is not necessary for the whole membership to vote each month to approve the Boards meetings and every action before anything can be done. The membership has many other life tasks and my not be available to vote for months at a time.

I suggest we begin again as nothing has been accomplished for over a year.

 I hereby make the Initiative that WDDM take the original WDDM Charter and implement it. We as a group can decide to implement a Sociocracy method of decision making, or seek the necessary board members and hold an election. [that will take more Initiatives, discussion and decisions] The Sociocratic method may work well. If no objections are expressed, the decision is taken. If there are objections, the matter is discussed until the objection is no longer objectionable. The I&BR method is in the WDDM Charter if needed so we can always make any changes necessary. Presently I need two seconds on this Initiative to process it into a referendum.

The controversy over what DD is requires only reading of the original Charter. For WDDM Direct Democracy is practiced utilizing the basic Swiss method of Initiative and Binding Referendum. This is the model we must advocate and help people implement. If some have other ideas they are free to begin their own movement. WDDM must be consistent with its own Charter.

There are many reasons for the Swiss method. Many of our governments have no method for the people to alter or change anything in their government. The Swiss method is a beginning. If the Swiss method of I&BR is implemented, the people can decide if they want more control, want to take over more responsibility of government. This is the best way, as the people decide what they want and commit to do the necessary work if they want more control.

Locally, it can begin with a petition of the citizens to implement Initiative and Binding Referendum. Since this is their government the people have the power to petition and make the decision. This power was implemented by the Magna Carta.

Some have the view that the people should vote on all or many issues. Unless the people themselves decide to do this extra work, that method would result in failure. By implementing I&BR the people can learn and implement what they need as they see fit for themselves. That is democracy.

I submit my Initiative and ideas to WDDM and to George L. Kokkas WDDM Founding Spokesperson who can discuss these matters at the upcoming WDDM meeting.

With kind regards, Bruce Eggum


Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
http://usinitiative.com

vote




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