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

02238: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

From: Lata Gouveia <latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:56:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

Mr. Stansfield,
I agree with what you said.

Ultimatelly, the entire problem of living in society, managing society (whether it's simply a family unit, a birthday party or a State) is the human ego. I understand you are a political scientist and probably don't deal in "esoteric" mumbo jumbo. However, if you read some of the least pleasant exchanges that sometimes occur on here, it will become clear that the human mind is very tempted by and addicted to the notion of "being right". Usually that requires someone else to be wrong. As a result, you could take 10 people who actually agree on something simple and, through the process of debate they will re-adjust their position in order to achieve the righteous state of mind that their egos crave. Perhaps it's a survival instinct, to be an individual, different from the rest (... better, smarter, academically credible, etc).

I feel that this should be a given. Human beings seek individual advantage, we are greedy creatures by nature... it's what we've had to be in order to survive. Our ACTUAL political systems reflect this, as they should. However, the question remains, what comes next?

The next step in political evolution is entirelly dependent on the next step in human evolution. This is the best THESE humans can do... but these humans can change, in fact, they are changing. Only a small portion of them, granted, but still some people are beginning to tackle the human ego as a serious disfunction and a serious obstacle to all the things that we commonly hope for (peace, health, nutrition, dignity, environment, wealth distribution, etc). Any attempt at political reform needs to understand the workings of the ego in order to have any kind of meaningfull impact on our common future.

Having said that, when you talk about "concrete practical ideas" you can expect a lot of disagreement. Ultimatelly it becomes about Whose idea was it? If it was mine, it's brilliant, if it was yours, I'll find a flaw, I'll play devil's advocate, of course. It's sad but it's true. Just being aware of this can help us move forward.

I have been designing a game of group decision-making that tackles both the democratic deficit that most of our management structures lack (whether corporate or civil) and tackles the issue that I've just exposed as well. I have never fully presented this game because I understand the criticism that I can expect. That's why I call it a game, because I know that if people think it doesn't matter they will be more willing to play. If you were to play Monopoly or Risk and it was "for real", the game would never start with everyone's agreement because people would want to pick the rules apart, make sure that the rules are "fair"... or to play into their own perceived strenghts.

It's a problem that no system can solve. Much of Karl Marx's theory was actually very well though out... but did he really work with THESE human beings or did he work with THOSE human beings... the ones in his mind?

That is why I think you are absolutelly right in taking a gradual approach. Rather than saying "this system is Universally right", as some of our fellow thinkers have suggested in this "World Government" debate, you suggest to work on one State, try it out, see if it works and hope it's contagious. That's how I feel about my game; Here is the game, here are the rules, let's get a few people playing it and they might really like it and invite their friends to join. If you don't like the rules, make your own game. It becomes like a free market for management systems... in the long term, people would iron things out. We might end up right where we started (with republics) or not... but it would solve the problem of inertia.

Regards
Lata

PS- If you would like to use a more private forum to bounce these things around, let me know.


--- On Sat, 1/8/09, Michael Stansfield <pure_democracy(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael Stansfield <pure_democracy(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Saturday, 1 August, 2009, 1:15 AM

I can not speak for others, but I have experienced this same problem myself as mentioned:


"I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from
    WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break
    away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is
    perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic
    system. It goes around in circles."

The Direct Democracy movement knows very well what the problems of our Republican form of government are, but the problem is that the solutions given on how to actually achieve Direct Democracy tend to splinter the group.  Often times to question someones concept on direct democracy or how they would achieve it on rational terms is discouraged, because the view from the group is that we want to retain as much support as we can and concrete methods to achieve those goals tend to divide us.  Case in point.  The Direct Democracy Initiative process as spelled out through the Constitutional Amendment they are proposing to allow the public to submit proposals to the national government is run by a committee of the people who are sponsoring the amendment so once again the ideas that move forward are in some ways determined by the committee members, rather than by the general public and no consideration is given to states or local rights which divides the direct democracy movement between these who favor greater local control (as I do) verses those who favor more national laws.  Also speaking to religious folks who want to put a proposal down to say allow prayer is school or allow for the Bible in the class room, the other side feels that these types of proposals shouldn't even be allowed on the ballot because they violate the first amendment.  The problem is that now these same religious folks feel like what good is democracy if my ideas can't even be placed on the ballot.  These are just a small fraction of the, like myself, could work to develop a Direct Democracy constitution.  No limits.  Lets see how far the concept can go.  But it doesn't get much attention, because each person is going in their own direct democracy direction where the direction seems to mimic their own political philosophy: Conservation Direct Democracy, Liberal Direct Democracy, etc. If we truly had a concrete plan I have the forms we could print it out and start the signature gathering to put an initiative on the ballot in each state to Amend the constitution, of course not all states allow public initiatives, but at least it is a start.  We don't even have to go that far, why not put out one initiative in one state to amend the state constitution to create a direct democracy in that state and kick out the state legislature.  This is what a concrete practical idea would give us provided the average American agrees with the concrete solution given.  The authority has always been in our hands, but it is easier to complain than it is to think and research and problem solve and we each have busy lives.  Due to this the cause remains a cause waiting for the blue print and actual constructive progress.  PS if your hoping congress will actually take away some of their power to give it to the people you might have better odds playing the lottery.

Sincerely,

Michael Stansfield
Author: Learning How to Fly - Jefferson's challenge for the Dawn of Direct Democracy


From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:24:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government?

Good Morning, Lata

Regarding your message of Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:24:51 +0000 (GMT)

re: "'You say that we don't need a government but instead just
    need to solve problems "such as how to feed the community,
    how to provide adequate water...' etc.  Well, that's
    government ..."

Well said!!!

The balance of your argument is equally irrefutable.  I chose this brief excerpt simply as an example.


re: "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by somebody
    who does not know us, does not care, somebody who has their
    own agenda and career to worry about and a society which
    does not think we are smart enough or responsible enough to
    grasp the skills of government."

Well said!!!

And, again, merely a brief excerpt from an excellent observation.


This is the crux of the matter.  While I realize you said (on May 14th) ...

  "I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from
    WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break
    away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is
    perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic
    system. It goes around in circles." ...

I wonder if you would be willing to discuss the specific problem you identified here?

I read and understand the game you proposed (on May 14th), but:

1) at the moment it does not (so far as I know) exist,

2) participation would be limited to those with the equipment and
  ability to play the game (which is not universal), and

3) it is at least one level removed from human interaction.

The little bit of your material I've been privileged to read tells me you are uncommonly thoughtful.  Could we exchange some ideas on representative government, either privately or in this forum?

Fred Gohlke
fredgohlke(at)verizon.net



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