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

02332: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

From: Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

Love it.

Direct Democracy = Athens/Switzerland
Representative = All the rest

The home of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates... and...
The only European nation to stay out of wars in the 20th century...

The complete failure of any government to institute a direct democracy DEMANDS explanation. It could be the obvious one... When governments are formed, people are asked to send representatives. Their choice is to implicitly submit to the system and send a representative or to abstain and not be represented. If they do not send a representative, the government created will still claim to be binding on them.

This is appropriate for an army that just conquered a region, for they derive their authority through force. Swords, information asymmetry and the network effect are all the legitimacy they need, because they can crush opposition. They present a choice: submission to a little tyranny or roll your dice with a bloody war.

Democracy derives its legitimacy from force, as well. Government by the will of the people sounds flowery, but it is both pragmatic and deeply philosophical.

If the guns all stopped firing and we were all standing in a room together, we would quickly agree to the need for some rules. Someone always then says, "The majority should rule", and the majority of the people agree. Yet, on a deep level, this is not what we actually believe. The legitimacy of the majority rule in a democracy can be tested by this question. Would a higher percentage of people agree to authorize the use of force by a simple majority or two thirds majority vote?

This is an important question for a society to answer, directly, by secret ballot.

Only when this first question is asked and answered will society have expressed its preferred level of restraint in the use of force. It is to the interest of everyone in a society that loves liberty to restrain our use of government to our most urgent needs. It should be a last resort, because it is force. It is the tool to use when negotiation breaks down, but not before.

A simple majority makes it possible to do just about anything with government. A bar as low as 50% and perhaps even 66% fosters vote pooling mechanisms. Political parties are the _expression_ of this benefit. The 50% bar for legislative approval is particularly insidious. Not only does it make long term vote pooling possible, it separates society into two groups, which will each inevitably gain control every few years because no matter what you call your party, you are a simple vote pool... in all places designed to trade votes to get minority positions the majority support they need to become binding on American citizens. When legislation that does not have popular support (at LEAST majority support from the public), there is inevitable unrest. This will cause whatever party is in power to lose its position to a party who is always and everywhere now championing "Change", "A New Deal" "A Contract With America", "We won't screw up this time, we promise", blah dee blah blah.

At an 80% bar for approval, we couldn't pass any legislation unless it was very, very well planned, or very commonly accepted by society. There is no effective way to construct a durable vote pool with the bar set that high. Around 70%, the pool members will begin to impact each other directly, making any transfer of wealth or privilege much more problematic. And vote pooling isn't a magic pill. It just confers a few percentage points of perversion into the system. A vote pool could push something with a 70% approval up to 80%, but even at 70%, it is probably a pretty good regulation. At 80%, We can still have a public that transfers wealth and enforces arbitrary social rules, but they will be a more common subset of the regulations and rules that we all want.

Two types of laws are passed in Congress, when you get past all the dedications and medals and "WE RESOLVE THAT IT IS OUR OPINION THAT BLAH BLAH NO ONE IS LISTENING".

The first has the support of one party. These are generally bad. For the use of government, 50% is not a high bar for legislative quality. After all, you only have to make a bill of high enough quality to gain the votes of a majority of politicians who may not even read the thing, who always vote with thier voting block anyways. To get things done in any voting system, it is beneficial to combine interests to get around "the one man, one vote" rule. Pesky rules. But that's the only way things get done in Washington... compromise, right? Compromise of principals, maybe. The laws in our past that have passed by slim margins are sometimes concerning very important issues... issues where an overwhelming majority solution COULD have been crafted.

But, enough about those partisan laws... the second type of law passes by an overwhelming majority. These can be counted on to be of two characters. The first type addresses an actual concern that society has expressed, and is generally one of the more constructive types of law. Ending the Viet Nam war, for example. Elected officials don't like protests. The protest is the only manner that society possesses to really get the attention of lawmakers to force them to address a need in society. Two hundred and thirty years after we declared ourselves free, we must take to the streets to prompt our government to action. We see this right now in America.

The other type of law that typically passes with an overwhelming majority somehow increases the power of government. I don't think this is necessarily because we elect power hungry people. Rather, those who believe that government is good tend to want it bigger. Politicians believe in their ability to do good with this machine they direct, and wish to increase its scope.

Thusly, and in good faith, we may toss a full 99% of the current US Code and Legislation into the rubbish bin of history. That mass of spaghetti-legislation deserves the scorn of any society that pretends to cherish freedom.

Government is our guardian and our weapon, to do so as we please. We must control it, so that we may never fear it again. It is our duty to protect this precious jewel, America. She was founded by a citizenry who thirsted for liberty. They received a government apart from the common man. They wanted equality, and found all power in the hands of white males. Worse, they would be forced to appoint their own rulers.

From the very beginning, the government has been causing harm to the common man. Yet we persist in the delusion that we can find better people... It is not about finding the right people, it is about the myriad of other devastating defects that plague representative systems.

We can pretend that we may find a man who is up to the task of ruling other men, but we pretend as children do. It is wholly unwise to underestimate the corrupting influence of power. Even if we were successful at finding the best in society, we would do best not to ruin them with power.

Direct democracy has a good track record. A post slavery fully enfranchised direct democracy deserves a shot.

If it fails... tuples, anyone?
But it won't fail. Direct democracy is the biggest secret sitting in front of everyone's face. It is a historical inevitability, because it is a superior system. We can stumble towards it or just give one quick sprint...

or

we can wait for some little country
            to do it before us and steal our glory.

                                                                  We can't come this close to freedom
                                                                      and choke right before the finish line.

                              This is the land of the free, for fuck sakes.

Oops... got a little carried away there.

Peace :)

Parrhesia Joe



On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, <Hamid Mohseni> wrote:
The problem is that we are living in a changing world. What seems right for a voter today can be wrong for him tomorrow.
An employee must know what his / her employer desire and do what is best for him. A politician has no chance to know
what millions of voters like to be done or decide everyday. The result is when vote for a politician to be your employee instead in practice you choose a leader and not an employee. To change this we should have another politic system which
I call direct democracy in this moment which alla decisions and rules are made by people through refrandoms and votings

As I know what you call direct democracy is call representative democracy.


Regards
Hamid


From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:49:04 +0200

Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

Hi Hamid,


Exactly the point


With Direct Democracy the voters decide what they want to delegate to officials and politicians.


There is not another economic institution where the employees tells the employers what to do


For those of you who have not seen the one pager from me on South Africa, it is repeated below


Regards


Jim Powell South Africa


Politicians are the employees of the voters


Our current system in South Africa is so much better than pre 1994 but it lacks accountability. The primary allegiance the proportional representatives have is to their own political party. The 50% of the local government councillors that have a constituency can at least be identified by the electorate but still are not accountable. We, the electorate, are the shareholders of the South African government and employers of our politicians. We choose the politicians who are employed and we must be able to directly control the politicians. An interesting statistic is that 97% the laws of the world’s best-known democracy, Switzerland, are passed without voter intervention. The threat of voter intervention means the laws are passed with the electorate in mind.


A combination of:


1. Constituency (Wards at all three levels of Government)

2. Top-up proportional representation to ensure that the representation reflects the will of the people

3. Portfolio positions (Ministers etc)

4. Recall of politicians (firing of politicians by the voters before the end of their 5 year term)

5. And referendum with initiative mechanisms where the electorate can reject or propose legislation and change the constitution.

 

should work the best for the employers of politicians, the voters.


The ANC would have won 80% of the seats on a constituent basis in 1994. The top up proportional vote would counter this. The ANC that obtained 69% proportional votes would then not receive any proportional seats, but would be able to appoint ministers as extra positions, as would the official opposition appoint shadow ministers. A political party that did not win any constituency seats but obtained 2% proportional votes would then be allocated 2% of the seats.


*Charles Bukowski quotes* <http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_bukowski/>

“The difference between a democracy (as normally practiced) and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.” Our current system can be called a 5 year dictatorship.


An employment advert for a politician in South Africa under the current system (and generally throughout the world) should read as follows:


Applicants are requested to submit their CV's for the position of politician:


1. The interview will last for a number of months.

2. Many thousands, or even millions, of the politicians’ potential employers (voters) will decide whether the politicians’ application will be successful

3. Should the politician be successful, the politician is guaranteed employment for 5 years unless the politician resigns, die, found guilty of a serious crime (we can talk about this one) or upset the group of people (political party) that the politician chooses to be employed with.

4. The politicians’ CV does not have to be accurate or truthful

5. The politician can ignore the employers (the voters) for the whole of the 5 years, and even go against the wishes or the politicians’ employers (voters).

6. The politicians’ employers are relying on the goodwill and integrity of the politicians, to act honestly and with dignity. But if the politicians choose not to, there is nothing that your employers, can do about it.

7. The politician’s employers understand that the basic rules of operation (SA Constitution) are in many ways much better than the vast majority of basic rules of many other countries and so much better than pre 1994. The basic rules were created by the politicians and in many ways for the benefit of the politicians and detriment of the employer (voter) and as a result the politician, the employee, will be in charge of the employers (voters).

8. Voters recognise that many politicians, from 1994, have done sterling jobs and others have done a terrible job but we, the voters (employers), will not able to remove the politicians from the voters employment or payroll if the voters are not happy with the politicians’ performance.

9. The voters (employers) will not be able to control the politicians (employees).

10. If the politicians are successful the politicians could change the basic rules (constitution) then the politician (employee), would then not govern us but would have to operate in the voters’ interest. This will be under the politicians’ control and we recognize from the past that you are not likely give the power to the voters (the politicians’ employers).

11. The voters, the politicians’ employers, would like the politicians to listen to the voters all the time and do as the voters instruct the politicians, not just play lip service for a month and then disappear for 5 years. It is the politicians’ choice whether you will do this.

12. The voters would like you to create a system to have an individual at every level of government that we can go to, so the voters would like to have constituencies at Central, Provincial and Local levels. Politicians, please put this in if you are elected

13. We will rename the position of "politician" to "5 year dictator" since this more accurately describes the position on offer. When the politicians give the power to the voters (employers), the voters will rename the position to “representative”.


We accept that this is a long road to travel. There are many steps to take so that the community will believe that they are in control of their destination. Let us all take the journey together.


Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy,

http://democracybythepeople.googlepages.com/direct-participatory-democracy-links

And http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/


Jim Powell (+27) 0118041335 0825712856 autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za



From: Hamid Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: 23 Sep 2009 10:17 AM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni


Hi Jim

An employee ask the employer whole the time what to do. Pratctice politic in the world makes it obvious that politicians
on the contrary command and force their employers (voters) what to do.
If I as a voter don´t like it I can not stop my politician employee because he/she has all resources, police and military.

Regards
Hamid

> From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:04:11 +0200
> Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
> Hi All,
>
> The definition should be of the concept of DIRECT DEMOCRACY. "Democracy" was
> used by dictators and the apartheid regime of South Africa.
>
> My definition of Direct Democracy is where the voters are in control of the
> politicians
>
> Politicians are the employees of the voters. Voters decide who gets employed
> and voters pay the salary
>
> Everything should grow from this
>
> Regards
>
> Jim Powell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Polak
> Sent: 22 Sep 2009 03:03 PM
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
> Dear all,
> I believe that most people agree that it is necessary to put forward a
> definition of the concept of DEMOCRACY most, if not all, people will approve
>
> and accept. In Athens 3.-4. October, at the second DDEV meeting, we will try
>
> to reach such an agreement. Anybody willing to participate at this
> discussion would be welcome. It is still time to contact the organizer,
> George Kokkas, geoko(at)otenet.gr if some of you would decide to go to Athens -
>
> the cradle of democracy and of the Western civilisation in general. A report
>
> from the meeting will be published in the usual channels.
> Sincerely, Jiri Polak
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Gohlke
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:50 PM
> Subject: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
>
> > Good Morning, Hamid
> >
> > re: "We should not forget that it is the present corrupt
> > democracies and diktator societies which gives enough
> > economicall and politicall power to few individuals and in
> > this way makes it possible for them to manipulate and
> > decieve peoiple by propaganda and other means."
> >
> > I agree with you, but I would point out that it is even more important to
> > understand how and why the democracies deteriorated to their present
> > state. If we don't understand how it happened, we can't prevent a
> > recurrence.
> >
> > The people are, indeed, manipulated and deceived. The work of B. F.
> > Skinner and the behavioral scientists lets our leaders (political and
> > commercial) milk us like cows ... and the growth of mass communications
> > has made their efforts inescapable. These people are very good at what
> > they do, and their success is the strongest argument against 'direct
> > democracy'.
> >
> > If we are to defeat deception and manipulation we must find people who are
>
> > superior to the deceivers and manipulators. We have such people among us.
>
> > What we lack is a means of finding them and raising them to positions of
> > leadership.
> >
> >
> > re: "In proper functioning democracies it would be more difficult
> > for few people to manipulate others for their own interest
> > because the power is shared between bigge number of
> > individuals."
> >
> > Of course, but what ... exactly ... is a 'proper functioning democracy'.
> > How is it organized? How does it work?
> >
> > It is easy to say the people must make all the decisions. It is not as
> > easy to say how they should do so. Will you allow public officials? How
> > will they be selected? What will be their role?
> >
> > Failure to consider these questions is what causes the huge gap between
> > the theory of democracy and its actual practice. It is precisely because
> > we have failed to consider these questions and provide sensible answers
> > for them that 'politicians' have been able to take control of our
> > governments.
> >
> > Fred Gohlke
>


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