On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:40:07 +0530 wrote
>
Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people must
>change in advance. I laugh in the face of the
contributors
>of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
>that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.
>
You are suggesting that causation runs from good people to good
government. I require evidence here, rather than conjecture. What I see
in case after case is that causality tends to runs from good social
framework to socially advantageous value norms.
I would point to the drastic social change that communism caused
in Romania, Ukraine, and China. A political system changed the
character of the people in these societies in a single generation.
There is a strong tendency in this case to run from bad social reward
system to anti-social behaviors. Also, note views on women in different
countries.
Women never achieve social equality until after they are granted
political equality, and a change in the political status of women is
the single best indicator of when they will begin, historically to be
viewed as equals in mainstream society.
I would also point to religion. In states where religion is
heavily involved, entire cultures tend to develop according to the
particular dogmas embraced by the state, rather than the underlying
religion. For example, Catholicism and Islam have played out very
differently in times and places where they have had differing degrees
ofcollusion with the "official" government.
The rules of government have a LARGE impact on our value
systems... such as how we feel about sex, drugs, violence, and theft.
Think of the sociopolitical changes that accompany a welfare state...
involuntary conscription... censorship... government controlled
schooling.
In short, a type of government creates a type of citizen. If
society does not reward honesty, integrity, thrift, labor, and
commitment, then these values will be in short supply.
In real life, bureaucracy acts as a shield against the good
intentions and kind nature of citizens. It makes decisions on our
behalf, claiming to be by our will... and they are important decisions,
and sometimes they are bad decisions. It makes us think that we are
responsible for this mess... this political garbage masquerading as the
public conscience.
Slavery in our name.
Corporatism in our name.
Populism, Imperialism, Torture, Lying and WAR... in our name!
Yet, THIS IS NOT US.
This DAMNED government has duped us into believing that all
these mistakes are a result of our nature. They are a result of
politics, and the political process.
The simple majority rule pits us against each other and puts us
on little teams. We ride into war on our elephants and asses, and
rather than joust, we talk past one anotherwith platitudes like,
"Politics is compromise", "Change must be slow", "There will always be
war".
The world is changing. It is time to roll with it.
A direct democracy will demand more of an individual, and it
will create the type of individual that we keep proposingas a
precondition of it's inception.
As for Implicit/Explicit...
If I asked WDDM to send a representative to Parrhesia Group, and
you sent one...
Would that implicitly give the representative you sent the
ability to enter into binding agreements in your name?
Could this representative sign a contract in your name allowing
me to garnish your wages for some project he finds fanciful?
People at the outset of this country never gave up the right to
vote directly on the terms of the US Constitution. They were never
asked. The US Constitution is a hatchet to the skull of liberty. It was
a recreation of parliament... with elections stirred in.
It's "ingenious" checks and balances are subvurted by a system
that invites vote pooling, and thus political parties... and thus
Republican presidentsappoint judges friendly to the republican agenda
andditto for democrats... And it becomes two parties, instead of three
branches... and one party is always "in power".
It must be explicit, because politics is corrupt. If you allow a
politician to have "implied powers" (I hate you, Hamilton) they get
very creative with the idea.
"Implied power abuse"
A man was fined for selling his corn for lower than the
federally mandated price, justified by the interstate commerce clause.
The man grew and sold the corn in a single state... and yet the
interstate commerce cause IMPLIED that the government could
intervene... BECAUSE
(mix in political creativity and implied powers... AND)
If the man was NOT selling the crop locally, then it could have
been released into interstate commerce... and therefore, price controls
were valid, even if no state lines were crossed... because it COULD
have been crossed if the farmer hadn't hoarded the corn in the local
market.
Also... California's pot legalization!!! Invalid...
beeeeecause... The interstate commerce clause. Creative. (The Marijuana
Tax Act was similarly creative - sinister).
And then there's Alexander Hamilton. He was ALL about implied
powers. We should learn from his mistakes and NEVER repeat them.
If we properly respect the authority and danger that government
represents, then we cannot accept implied power doctrine. It is easily
abused.
Parrhesia
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Antonio
Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
Joseph,
>
>I'm going to insert some comments to your reply.
>
>
>
>Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician,
any business leader,
>any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility about
Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will laugh in
your
>face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why? "Because people
>are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be incredibly naive
>to think otherwise"
Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people must
>change
in advance. I laugh in the face of the
contributors
>of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
>that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.
>
So, when poll people in positions of power, they are of the
opinion that representation is a necessity. Okay. If you ask ateacher
about the necessity of teachers, I assume you would get similar
results... for similar reasons. I do not think you are trying to use
that as a supporting argument, but rather as in introduction into the
theme that the people are not informedenough to govern themselves.
Just so. Today's teaching - and most of all earliest teaching,
>i.e. parenting - are aimed to grow-up "Yes-Men" people.
>No wonder then, if these people will need of some one whom
>they say "Yes" to, and undergo. Therefore, teaching and
>parenting must be revised, if we wanted the new generation
>to become fit to perform DD.
>
>And, "Educate your child and you'll educate yourself," the
>old sage said.
>
>
I'll buy that, as long as you have proof.
Compare citizen andCongressionallypassed legislation. Is the
quality higher on the latter? Show me theexamples.There is a VAST body
of such evidence to inspect.
Or is it that people do not WANT to govern themselves, as
Antonio said,
Very simply, average people do not want to take any
>political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
>to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
>requirement of Democracy.
Point to the survey in an initiative/referendum state where
the citizens want to revoke this privilege. Point to the survey of
Swiss citizens who wish to give up the same.
I have been looking in earnest for examples of where a
citizenry explicitly gave up their right to have a direct say in their
government. From what I have studied, this seems like a chimera. I
continue to search, but without a clue, I don't think I canfind it.
Perhaps someone here can help.
>
Why, "explicitly"?
>
>"Implicitly" is more than enough. I don't believe you'll even
>get the people to discuss this point explicitly, or else make it
>become an item of their Reps' political agenda.
>
>
>
On what evidence do we base our claims that these two
propositions are correct?
The citizens are unable to govern themselves.
The citizens do not wish to govern themselves.
"The people are too stupidor lazy to govern themselves"
>
The evidence is, Direct Democracy is down , there where
>Representative Democracy is up
>
We know why this is a beneficial doctrine for a government
to promote. We know we were inundated with this during our public
education. We know that people other than ourselves will believe in the
silliest notions... but we are inoculated, individually wiser than the
masses we judge. We are better. We are vain. We are hubristic.
We are those who Socrates and John Stuart Mill spoke of. We
are never wrong, because the older we are, the more harm it causes to
our pride to admit to a 10, 30, or 50 year mistake in judgement.
There is no issue where clarity of discussion is more
essential than in the responsible use of force. Government is force,
legitimated by some base of overwhelming power. Democracy places that
legitimacy in the hands of the people.
The first specific question about government is the question
of representation. For that reason, I (seemingly incessantly, right?)
press this issue. Have we honestly evaluated a true direct democracy,
or did we jump past it to the admittedly more interesting issue of
solving the problems with representation? The whole WDDM movement could
be viewed as a campaign to solve some of the issues with
representation, but have we gotten ahead of where reason would
logically direct us...
Should the first question of a democracy not be a poll of
the public to decide the question of representation?
>
Wrong question (see above.)
>If you were able to obtain a
really decisive
poll to decide
>the question of representation, this would mean that DD
>is already up. Vice versa, if DD were down, as it is, you
>won't obtain such a poll even.
>
>
>And so on. I stop here, for the time being
>
>Regards, antonio