Re: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.

[Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>]

I would point out that Robert's rules of order are derived from political debate. Contrasted with philosophical debate, we can see major differences in these two approaches.

Socrates believed that truth could be arrived at by structured discussion. The aim of these quorums was not a fifty or sixty-six percent majority. The goal was consensus... to meet every objection and to arrive at truth.

Parliamentary procedure and others are tainted by the "Need to get things done" and do not drive toward truth, but rather a compromise of truth that sounds good enough to get an action legitimated by the framework.

Socrates would point out that a 2/3 majority is often wrong, and it was very rare that they could not come to a consensus when they disciplined themselves. While rhetoric and demagoguery were not absent, they were ameliorated.

Socrates said it was possible to get most people to believe a lie, but the only thing you could get a consensus on was the truth. Truth can NOT contain a SINGLE contradiction. And yet, many styles of debate will validate opinions by vote, as if the vote of flawed men could gloss over any contradictions left to inspect.

Roberts Rules of Order treats an abstention as silent consent, which is intellectually flawed.

A two-thirds vote is allowed to end debate. This is only considered a benefit on two grounds,

It is good as soon as two-thirds of the people agree

A small group should not be able to block a vote on new rules

A simple majority or 2/3 majority support for a law is a low bar. We do not accept this a justifiable for the use of force in our own lives, and so when the government acts on these grounds, we find it to be injustice, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.

Plato and Socrates would say you have to discuss until all objections have been satisfied and all contradictions have been explained.

Esi... I am glad you point out a valid strategy here...

why not building a shadow
government based on direct democracy which can be used in different countries to challenge and replace undemocratic governments prevailing there.

Facebook, anyone? What Esi points out is the fundamental truth that a democracy derives its authority from the people. At any time, if the people, by a valid enumeration, declare their wish to change a law, or even a portion of the constitution, it would be an absolute disaster for any political leader to challenge that sovereign right of the people.

And that is how we'll change the world.

If you build it, they will come.

That said, I found Roberts Rules of Order to be a good political decision making tool. It more easily justifies force than any Socratic or Scientific model, It is more balanced and restrained than standard parliamentary procedure. Socrates would have them argue for months, just to take a little liberty from a few people. Politicians would never go for it.

The only place the Socratic dialogs were really popular was a direct democracy. Politicians don't like extended debate.

Freedom, coming soon.

Parrhesia

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM, <Bill(at)politicalpsychologyresearch.com> wrote:

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:39:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.
From: William McConochie
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>

Dear Hamid:

    One practical skill you could build in your civilians is learning to run meetings by Roberts Rules of Order.  These rules are simple and clear and guide small groups of people to disucss issues, clarify action options and vote in democratic fatshion to choose the best ones for action by the group.  You can Google to find publishers of the Rules, or maybe even a copy available to simply download from the Internet.

    Best regards, Bill McConochie.

----- Original Message -----

From: Hamid Mohseni

To: World Direct Democracy

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:48 AM

Subject: RE: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.

In the time we are discussing intellectual prospective of direct democracy, people and humanity is suffering of dicatatorships, corrupt and half democracies. To build an ideal and perfect democracy is not an easy case bacause nature
and livings rules are complicated and all questions and mysteries are not answered yet. We can not build a perfect
democracy from beginning but we can start somewhere based on some simple principles decided in democratic way by majority of people while we are trying to satisfy even minorities as long as possible. One of these principles can be that
no one is allowed to decide in behalf of others and normal minded adults against their will. Later on we can continue by
making new decisions in democratic way to solve new problems and desires.