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

01945: Re: [WDDM] Antonio's last

From: "Bruce Eggum" <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:42:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Antonio's last

Here is Antonio's irrational thesis:
"Level One:  interventions on the offering of Democracy, like DD charters,
DD laws, DD models etc.  Let's call this, in short, "top-down"

When the people make DD charters, DD laws, DD models
these actions are NOT "top-down" they are the peoples choice. "Bottom UP"

Antonio  has consistently opposed these peoples choices.
Antonio is against any bottom up peoples choice politics.

Example, Antonio is against the people within WDDM organizing themselves as a community to jointly work together.

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

  vote


On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM, <Antonio Rossin> wrote:
ROY DAINE ha scritto:


Antonio,

There is no increasing shortage of drinking water in the UK. Where there may be
(snip)

ROY,

That of drinking water was a minor argument I produced as an example of a
DD policy being performed bottom up by the people.  If you like to accept it,
nice; if you dislike, no problem as far as I can see.

There was but a more relevant argument  in my contribution.  Let me  quote:

(ant)
"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. "

To which you replied, substantially:

(ROY)
"How do you make two diametrically opposites match."

There has already been a long blushing discussion by WDDM on this topic.
At first, the WDDM membership majority seemed to consider, support, and
adjudge DD, only the interventions in "Level One" (se above), and I had
hard a job in trying to advocate the DD relevance of "Level Two".

Actually, the WDDM majority took "Level Two" as the diametrical opposite
of what the DD activists were carrying up in what I called "Level One", and
thus a useless, somehow timewasting not to say destructive, argument.  Theirs
was just the same position (and the same language) you ROY exposed in the
above quote .

Well now, let me suggest, the above Level One and Level Two must be not
considered like the two opposite stances of a competitive match.  Vice versa,
these seemigly opposite levels must be considered like the two opposide sides
of one same coin, that must match together (i.e., be carried up together) in a
mandatorily co-operative game, if we really wanted Democracy to succeed.


Thanks ROY for the stimuli you gave me to explain this matter a bit more.

Hoping this helps, regards,

antonio


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