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

02301: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

From: Lata Gouveia <latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:21:07 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

I completely agree Hamid


From: Hamid Mohseni <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
To: World Direct Democracy <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 16 September, 2009 14:31:27
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments


 Hi Lata
We should not forget the importance of objectivity and desires. A competent egoist, corrupt politician is a bigger problem
for people than amateurs. Therefore it is important that all normal minded people have similar possibility to decide about
all rules and decisions in the society and why not the world.
Competence can be obtained by accessable information for the people. People learn from wrong decisions and change them later with right ones. They also learn to be careful and don´t vote for any decisions they don´t have enough knowledge about.

Regards
Hamid


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:02:49 +0000
From: latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

Hi Fred,
First of all, if the objective of society is to "allows us to live our ordinary lives in peace and security" then there are many ways of achieving that without the need for democracy. The USSR achieved it since 1945 until 1989, Cuba has achieved that... in fact North Korea has achieved that.

When I talk about "democratic deficit" I talk about the fact that citizens have no meaningful ways of impacting governmental decisions, every four years they get to chose the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

You talk about competence and expertise, let me say that I never said that anyone can do the job of an architect, engineer or scientific researcher. There is nothing about more direct forms of democracy that denies the need and usefulness of expert knowledge, advice and information analysis. However, to say that representative politicians possess some higher gift of decision making as a form of expertise.... does not seem plausible.

There is one thing I don't understand in your line of argument and I might as well ask you out right. I can understand you saying that it's wrong for you to impose your will on others because you lack the knowledge. But you can be briefed and you have just as much ability to understand what the experts tell you as a politician does. So to just say they are somehow superior to yourself in terms of their capacity to assimilate expert advice just seems like a cop out.

However, what really surprises me is the inconsistency. You don't apply that principle evenly. You say it's wrong for us to make binding decisions over others but we should find good people to make them for us! So, to me it sounds like you wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship where you don't have a say, as long as the dictator does a good job of deciding everything on our behalf and allows us to "live our ordinary lives in peace and security".

If that is your view, I have to respect it. But I don't believe that it is your view because you seem to be interested in finding better ways of "picking the representatives". Let me ask you, what makes you think we have the expertise to pick good people of competence and integrity... and that we have the right to impose our chosen candidate on others? Is that not making a binding decision over others? Voting for a president is to impose a leader on others.. What makes you think you have adequate knowledge to be able to make that decision?

Lata Gouveia




From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, 13 September, 2009 16:45:14
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

Good Morning, Lata

re: "People are so used to representative systems that, when
    confronted with having to make decisions, they come back
    saying that it's wrong to impose our will on anyone else.
    Very interesting indeed. It makes me think that the horrific
    democratic deficit that we can identify in every
    representative system is not, for most people, the problem,
    it is a virtue.  It gives them escape goats and deflects
    personal responsibility. I am beginning to think that, deep
    down that is what people want, even if they are ashamed to
    admit it."

In spite of my earlier comment that "you are uncommonly thoughtful", the disparaging remarks in your letter do not seem well thought out.

Specifically,

re: "... they come back saying that it's wrong to impose our will
    on anyone else."

However much it may offend you, I lack the arrogance to believe I have a right to "impose (my) will on anyone else."  Indeed, in my 80 years, I've seen enough to know I oppose anyone who feels they have that right.  It is not our place to impose our will; all we can do is seek a way to find the will of the people and enable them to implement it.


re: "... even if they are ashamed to admit it."

I am not ashamed of the fact that I believe representative democracy is the only rational form of government.  I need representatives with the intellect and integrity to address the problems of society as they arise.  I have neither the knowledge, nor access to the hard data that would inform me, to make a judgment as to whether a bridge on the highway is structurally sound, or whether bank capitalizations are adequate, or whether the ice cap is growing or shrinking at an unusual rate, or whether a foreign nation has Weapons of Mass Destruction (even though the amount of hyperbole that surrounded the latter suggested it was an engineered issue.)  To imagine that lay citizens can, or should, render judgments on such topics is the height of folly.

We elect people to investigate these matters and we provide them with the resources necessary to do so.  The fact that they have proven inadequate to the task does not invalidate the system.  It just shows that we have elected incompetent people.

There is no question but that, as you once said, "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by somebody who does not know us, does not care, somebody who has their own agenda ...".  When I first read that assertion, I thought you recognized the fallacy of electoral processes, dominated by vested interests, that take away our natural right to select our own representatives.  Now, it appears you had the words right, but drew the wrong conclusion.


re: "It makes me think that the horrific democratic deficit that
    we can identify in every representative system is not, for
    most people, the problem, it is a virtue."

If by 'horrific democratic deficit' you mean that our so-called representative democracies are in no way representative of the people, your characterization is fine.  But, to suggest the people think that circumstance a virtue is shallow.  There is no shortage of dissatisfaction with such systems, there is only an inability, so far, to understand why the present implementations are undemocratic.

Since you apparently reject the concept of representative democracy, you implicitly deny that there are, among us, people we can trust to represent us, people capable of conducting our government in a manner that allows us to live our ordinary lives in peace and security.  That is, from my perspective, an inaccurate and slanderous view of our species.

We have no lack of capable, public-spirited people with integrity.  What we lack is the means of finding them and raising them to seats as our representatives in our government.

Fred Gohlke

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