Hi all,
I agree that manipulation takes place in all countries.
This does not mean that DD should not be in place. Without DD
the authorities are in total control.
With DD the voters can put the rules in place. One such rule would
be the right of reply at the same level
Regards
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Hamid Mohseni
[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 Oct 2009 09:24 AM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Yes
you are right. Many people don´t know their best but there are many
reasons for that and they change when the
political and social culture has changed.
All media, schools and other power means are controllead by authorities
who have fun in behalf of others suffering.
People can be manipulated and distinguished by corrup authorities. People don´t
dare to be honest and you can
missunderstand them because of that.
Regards
Date:
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:55:17 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
Hi
I am sorry to tell you that the same problem exist even in western coutries
rulled by different kinds of representant democracies but probably not as
open and widespread as in Iran.
As an example I saw a documentary film about the way Pazolini was killed
in Italy because of his political activity and opinions paid by people in
power.
I do not remember details but as I remember media gave sexual affairs as
the motivation for the murder instead of the real motivation.
Specially after 11th Septembe and world trade center catastrophy western
societies politicall atmospher has changed gradually more and more and is
closing to looks like Iran and other dictator countries.
So I think it is not only you who are progressing toward direct democracy
but also people in power are progressing in their dictatorship.
Hi Hamid
let's agree, it is not my individual progress toward democracy that matters.
What matters, it is the people who support Direct Democracy - meant as the
capacity of taking political responsability upon themselves.
Sad to say, these people - their majority - instead of supporting DD, do really
support those in power and their dictatorship.
How could we turn dictatorship into democracy if the people's (democratic,
i.e.,
50+1 voters %) support dictatorship?
Therefore
I
think it is naive to try to change the society only by changing people if you
do not even fight against those who has interest to protect their priviledges
in non democratic political systems.
Again: those in power are empowered to protect their privileges thanks to
the spport of the democratic majority of people.
Of course how the resources should be
divided between changing people
and changing existing political system can be different in different countries.
Regards
Hamid
Regards,
antonio
Date:
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:40:23 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid,
the problem you expose portraits the reality, as far as I can see.
Agreed: in substance, it looks like performing political propaganda,
which attitude in some countries would be quite suicidal. Therefore,
the information should be spread indirectly: it should gain momentum
in countries where freedom of speech, and free time, are greater.
Yet this does not happen, still, here in western countries. I've found
hard opposition - even in this list - whenever I presented dialectical
confrontation as a chance of conflict resolution and peace, among
people who consider dialectics as a destructive sort of separation.
To fix the resistence of such narrow-minded people, here in western
countries, I am champaigning Primary Prevention of Drugs Addiction,
as a Trojan Horse for the family educational model suitable for
Democracy, since both models - that for democracy and that fot drugs
prevention coincide.
What shall I tell you, more? I am woking out this champaign since
four decades, but I am reaching some results, say, the last five years
only. I can count the friends who help me on the fingers of one
hand.
(Maybe they are some more, but not so many... ;-) )
Cheers,
antonio
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
Hi
The problem is that you have no possibility to inform and cure people
in colonized countries like Iran. Many times when
you try to inform others it means that youare risking death
penalty or serious punishment by politicians in power.
In these kind of societies everything is controlled by politicians.
Censurship, fear and hunger make it impossible to change
people. Hungry people has only time to run for money and food and nothing else.
They know if they are not politically correct (Think as authorities like)
they take big risks for their life and carriar.
People most of the time know much more than we beleive by they don´t dare
to tell what they know.
In these kind of societies you should fight the authorities first befor
you can get a chance to change people.
This is the cause of many blody revoulutions instead of eveolution.
Regard
Hamid
Date:
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:18:02 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hamid Mohseni ha scritto:
It
is not possible to change to direct democracy in a society made
of mentally and physically sick people.
(ant)
Agreed. However, it is possible to inquiry for :
- what
the mental (and physical) is,
- how
it is propagated by people to people through generations,
- whether
it could be possibly prevented
(
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace,com/rossin08.htm
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/common/Antonio.Lucknow.ppt
)
and take action subsequently
Otherwise, we keep on dealing with a matter whose causative origins
we do not know, that is blindly. Knowledge is mandatory, before all.
May I remember that Knowledge means (capacity of) Control ?
That is, make the people know, and the people will control.
Otherwise, without knowledge, no control is possible. I wonder how
we (active responsible) could pretend Direct Democracy to be up,
provided that DD means "control by the people".
(which does not prevent the active responsible people to spend
as much resources as possible to inform the public locally and
contrast the corrupted - in both Iran and Italy, under suitable i.e.
right proportions respectively)
Regards,
antonio
It
is not neither possible to change to direct democray in a
society controlled by corrupt, mentally and physically sick
politicians.
The question is not to choose between changing people or politicians but
changing both to develope to succeed.
Before changing anything we probably must begin by analyzing social
situation in the actual society. After that we should
plan and invest in right proportions depended on social
situation in both parts so hpefully succeed to develope to direct
democracy.
In countries like Iran probably you should use more resources to get rid of
corrupt government which often works for colonial powers.
Ira countries like Italy probably your should use more resources to inform and
change people.
Regards
Hamid
Date:
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0200
From: rossin(at)tin.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Joseph Hammer ha scritto:
Sorry.
Today's society does not. The sad evidence is, if society
would reward these
values fairly, there would be no need of
improving democracy, and our
discussions would be nonsensical.
You
imply a relationship between democracy (or the governing system in
general) and the reward of virtue in society. What, in your opinion,
is this relationship?
IMHO, every society (as well as every governing system including
the so-called democracies) rewards individual behavious. Rewarded
individual behaviours become collective-social behaviours soon, and
so society builds up itself.
The health of society depends on this rewarding process, whether it
does or does not allow insane behaviours be rewarded in its inside.
Are
you saying that the goal of improving democracy is to cause this sort of
society?
I'm saying, if our society suffers from insanity - whose symptoms are
drugs, the eco disaster, wars, mental ilnessess and so on - our social
arrangement shall be inproved. Let's give our social arrangement the
name "Democracy".
Therefore,
if this sort of society already exists, then the focus on democracy is
redundant or of diminished necessity?
Therefore, if our social arrangement is fit to social requirements - and
does not produce any symmptom of insanity, there is no problem here,
and let us continue the discussions about democracy in the academe.
Or,
are you saying that there is a causal relationship between the two? If so,
which way would you say it runs?
Imho, society i.e. the people do reward insane behawiours because
they suffer since childhood from too less critical thinking and too much
passive dependence on the authority's consent.
antonio
On
Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Joseph
Hammer ha scritto:
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.
Are
you sure?
I do not see any change in tha character of people there,
provided that people underwent rather passively to a political
system before, and underwent the same passively to a different
political system later. Did it the characher of the people change
substantially? I think it did not. It is the ruling system that
changed over them, not because of the responsible wish of the
people inside, but because of some foreign forces working over
the people from the people's outside.
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.
To
obtain political equality, women had to struggle very hard,
in the past centuries, after the French revolution, methinks.
No one granted them any gender parity spontaneously, i.e.,
without being compelled by women to do it, here in the West.
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 of collusion with the "official" government.
Ok.,
but people behave almost the same under different dogmas,
as far as I can see. Very simply, they undergo.
However, fundamentalist people do not accept any degree of
freedom from the religious dogmas of their religions, and their
religious leaders have a good hand in dominating them - see
for instance some Islamic countries. In the West vice versa, the
freedom degree from fundamentalistic dogmas is greater, and it
parallels the degree of gender parity. I would ascribe the merit
of this democratic success to women's past struggles for a state
of social parity.
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.
Sorry.
Today's society does not. The sad evidence is, if society
would reward these values fairly, there would be no need of
improving democracy, and our discussions would be nonsensical.
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.
My
humble two-cents on this topic are free at:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin11.htm
Comments welcome.
Regards, antonio
Populism,
Imperialism, Torture, Lying and WAR... in our name!
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 another with 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 proposing as 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
presidents appoint judges friendly to the republican agenda and ditto
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.
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.
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 a teacher 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
informed enough 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 and Congressionally passed legislation. Is the quality higher
on the latter? Show me the examples. 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 can find 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 stupid or 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
A
public tasked honestly with the formation of a government will have to answer
this and other questions before the public or anyone can design a
democratic government to serve them. That is a requirement of any system that
claims to be a democracy. We skipped this in America. We consolidated
power and then made other decisions by proxy, on a false foundation. This new
power quickly validated ITSELF, voting that representation was a valid
_expression_ of the public will. These decisions were the product of self
interest, because they could not have been the result of a devotion to
philosophy, a commitment to democracy, or the available evidence.
In
the beginning, do we really assume that the people would have given up their
right to vote on war, which ravaged every country they labored to escape?
Do we believe that they would trust this government, coming from lands led by
leaders with little interest in the serfs they controlled? Would they have
given up this right if asked directly?
No.
It was taken, as were all other democratic rights when representation was not
validated explicitly by the governed. The omission of a referendum process at
the creation of the union is proof positive that this government was not an
_expression_ of the public will... even the white male landowning public will,
which is a low bar for legitimacy indeed.
233
years later, we defend the decisions of the representatives of white, middle
and upper class males. But why?
We,
the people, are afflicted with the tendency to stick to our positions once they
are publicly stated. We are also susceptible to propaganda and
conditioning. Combine with these tendencies a mass media and endless
repetition, we begin to understand why the correct information sometimes takes
a long time to surface. Geocentricism, witch hunts, alchemy, theories of
gods on mountaintops throwing lightning and the luminiferous ether...
not to mention modern macroeconomics and the healing power of magnets.
Yes,
there are benefits to representation, in theory and practice. This is a
supportable position. By focusing on this side of the issue, it is easy to
judge in favor of its existence.
We
do not sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of harm that representation
causes, harm that can only partially be mitigated by selecting the correct
people for the job. We must be the United People of America, apart from
artificial institutions and princedoms. We must be held completely accountable
for the decisions of our government, and we cannot, unless we are the same.
Direct
democracy is not perfect. "One man, one vote" is not a bulletproof
concept, but it is the best of the available choices.
I
have been in favor of representation for over 20 years. I didn't change my mind
until I actually started talking to people about their views of society. I
spoke to hundreds of people, a few every day, venturing from my apartment
in Seattle to simply discuss politics with different people at Seattle Centre.
Very
slowly, I realized that my comparative advantages in decision making were
illusory. Perhaps I underestimated the masses because it fed my ego.
Perhaps I had just seen SO many news reports and political commentaries that I
began to see people through the their skewed lens... caricatures of
reality. It is more than likely both reasons that supported my
misconceptions.
I
would trust a vast majority of the people I have spoken
with to vote on issues, which they express to me in very plain terms.
Sometimes these terms are crude and sometimes they are different than
mine, but that's okay.I may not agree with a person, but this is their country,
too. We must decide together how to progress, and I would rather collaborate
directly than through some convoluted and corruptible process. It is to
everyone's benefit if this process is honest and transparent... simple and
efficient. We sacrifice all four of these benefits to some degree with
representation. We must be sure it is worth the sacrifice.
When
I talk to these same people about candidates, the conversation is
sometimes about political ideas and understanding of the issues, but often
it takes a back seat to other considerations. Many times, a
desire for change is evident, but not a direction. Could it be that the actual
changes we long for are impossible, so we settle for picking a team that will
let us feel we have some control over a system that no one controls... a system
out of control?
In
all, I find that these "stupid" people know far more about the issues
than they know about the candidates they are electing. It is a far easier
task to research an issue than it is to correctly judge the character of a
man who seeks power.
If
people are easily duped and lead, then the correct course is to limit the
impact of their ignorance. If they are responsible, then a direct democracy
poses little threat. Hitler was elected, after all, so ignorance of the
masses does not necessarily imply that representation is superior... one could
convincingly argue quite the opposite.
Initiative/referendum
states (and Switzerland) effectively give the public the ability to
override or pass any law that the public chooses. Our analysis MUST include the
quality and effects of these laws, as well as the admission that the
"public is stupid" argument would make this situation a disaster...
in theory...
How
it actually plays out should dispel any fears, but we cling as barnacles to the
rock of our individuality... the makeup of which must include our passionately
held beliefs. If we correct our positions when we are wrong, we lose a
part of ourselves, but it is a cancerous part. We should rejoice in its
excise. Socrates sought wisdom for the joy of it. Philosophy. He said to be
right, and to understand was a far greater treasure than winning an argument.
What we gain is wisdom, understanding, and a proper humility.
I
cannot help but apply the most extreme scrutiny to the practice of
representative rule making. When one supposes this may be correct, and analyzes
the world through this lens, many new questions... fulfilling questions come to
the surface.
Communism,
for example... if the peoples' soviet union had been directly controlled,
how would it have evolved? Would the distribution have been more rational?
Would they have evolved into a merit based system of quasi-market distribution
with limits on profit margins for enterprises? We will never know, but this is
FERTILE THINKIN' GROUND.
A
look at US History is another great intellectual pursuit. We read the inspiring
words of the founders... we see the wisdom they displayed in the checks and
balances system. Why did the creation of these people turn into what we have
today? Representation plays a primary or secondary roll in almost every bad
decision, war, and scandal in American history. This lens is clear as day.
Consider
any historic issue. Say... slavery. Was there popular support for slavery? Was
it 50%? Did anyone ask? It really didn't matter, did it? No referendums... just
politicians... making all the decisions.
How
about this. Extradition laws. Would the people of the north submit to the
demand that they return southern slaves and pay taxes to support
enforcement of fugitive slave laws? This was done for political interests,
and was never supported by the people. What would have happened if any slave
could simply gain their freedom by crossing a state line? In any state with slavery,
it would be excessively expensive to employ slave labor, which could run a
manageable distance to safety. This would be extremely pronounced in states
close to Pennsylvania... freedom... so close.
Oooh...
Maryland. How would that have unfolded? The state is really thin, and it would
be expensive to protect against their flight to Pennsylvania. Would the mass of
white male landowners pay to support this enterprise, even though the majority
owned no slaves in Maryland? Would a domino effect have killed the economic
viability of slavery, because the masses would not consent to socialize the
high costs of keeping a slave state? This was pro-plantation policy... not
pro-white landowner. The two groups are not synonymous, and without the
plantation dollars lobbying representatives, would slavery have evaporated?
History
is explained so well when we pin the blame on representation itself, as a core
defect in our governing system. Every war and a vast majority of historical
blunders would not have been undertaken without the distortions of the
public will that representation inevitably introduces.
Is
our belief in representation simply a result of conditioning? How much
influence can repetition and conditioning have? Can an entire population
fervently believe some set of ideas with no proof, simply because of the
prevailing attitude?
Do
I really need to answer this? Consider religion.
We
believe fervently that the masses are vulnerable in this way, but we vainly
believe we are not subject to these same forces individually. I believe that
representation only exists because it exploits our blind spots. Everywhere I
look, I find evidence supporting this finding. I just looked up the history of
referendums in my state. In the house, referendums sailed through. They were
popular at the time... unions and other groups threw their support behind them.
There was excellent public support. And it failed the senate... and failed
again... and then got enacted to much hoorahs, with the provision that the
public couldn't modify the basics of the government... the constitution and
such... like... how elections were run... districts were drawn... trivial stuff
like that.
About
two hundred times a year, I stood with my classmates and pledged my allegiance
to a flag. I pledged my allegiance to the republic for which it stands. Every
morning I met with my young impressionable peers, we faithfully recited this
promise.
I
no longer pledge myself to the republic, but to the people. I pledge my support
to the meek, that they may finally enjoy their inheritance, purchased in tears
and blood.
"I
found that I was the wisest of all these men, because I knew I was not
wise" - Socrates.
Reason
and truth above self.
On
Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
Hi
Lata,
No, you are not a mad, as far as I can see.
At a first sight, I like your Citizen Mundi initiative
very much. I realize, it is an excellent endeavour
to rise people's participation from bottom-up, thus
consistent with the (Direct) Democracy we look at.
IMHO, it looks like the very opposite of the top-down
"truths" with which some crazy scientists and other
aspirant leaders of Democracy (?) keep on inundating
so insistently the Yes-Men herd they want to head.
Cheers,
antonio - psychiatrist
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Antonio,
So I'm not crazy? Great!
I always suspected that was the case but for the last 8 weeks I've been running
Citizen Mundi and the data I've ben collecting confirms that is the case even
among relative intellectual elites. If you have a minute, come and visit us at:
https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/
Thanks again,
Lata
From: Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, 9 October, 2009 8:35:56
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Lata,
I totally agree with you: (the utmost democratic
majority of) people are not fit to govern themselves.
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.
Now the problem becomes, analyzing why when and how
such a dependent trait has been embedded into people's
relational brain.
I mean, once this imprinting mechanism had been exposed,
its reversal could be all what today's Democracy needs of.
Regards,
antonio
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you Joseph,
I've just read your response.
Whilst I agree with most of it, I am not so confident that the "one
person/one vote" mantra is necessarily fair or sensible.
Moreover, from the point of view of a long term strategy to push for more
direct types of democracy, it is the biggest thorn on our side. Equal
opportunity, yes, but whilst demanding individual responsibility.
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"
The main reason for the preservation of Guardianship and representative systems
is, above all others, the notion that people are not fit to govern themselves.
Let me give you an example. Ireland has just approved the Lisbon Treaty. Many
people believe the Irish people were blackmailed, intimidated or brainwashed.
Others say that they were informed, as opposed to a year ago, when they
rejected the Treaty.
Let me ask you this, would it really be so unfair to ask people to fill in the
following questionnaire and shouldn't people have a responsibility to do
certain basic research before demanding that the powers that be step down and
hand everything over?
1)
The treaty of Lisbon is:
- A) document that concerns the Republic of Ireland exclusively.
- B) A document that primarily concerns the European Union.
- C) A document that primarily concerns the trade relationship between Ireland
and Portugal.
2)
The two main decision-making institutions within the EU are:
- A) The Council and the Commission
- B) The Parliament and the Commission
- C) The Parliament and the Council.
etc.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a person who does not know these
basic things is just as fit as someone who does to make a binding and
irreversible decision for their country and for the future of the entire
premise of geopolitics?
I guess this is my dilemma. I am a supporter of democracy, I criticise
democratic deficits wherever I see them and I believe that the next evolutionary
step for Mankind is, somehow, related to the improvement of democracy. However,
if I had to make a choice between giving the British people a referendum on,
say, the Euro, or giving a handful of people at the top the decision, I would
have to go with the second option... simply because I don't trust the British
people to know anything that's not been fed to them by Rupert Murdock.
Bring in the multiple choice test and the weighted vote and I would totally
support the referendum instead.
Simple.
Lata
From: Joseph Hammer
<parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, 8 October, 2009 10:26:37
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
I would tend to agree with Hamid and Jim.
The American Medical Association is a great case study for
this issue. They have more knowledge about the medical industry than the
average individual, but that is not necessarily a good thing. It would be good
if the motivation of the actors was the unbiased betterment of mankind. This is
folly. No person can recognize the extent of his or her own bias. History
tends to exonerate the idea that any group who possesses superior
knowledge will use the information asymmetry to enrich themselves rather than
society in general.
I strongly believe in the "one person, one vote"
principal. If forced to compare the relative effects of ignorance and
power consolodation, it might be a toss up. However, we will have ignorance
through bias in any category of man. What is in our power to prevent is the
consolodation of power. Wise kings start wars... uneducated peasants seldom
think it worth the cost in blood.
In most decisions of governance, it is ethical principals
rather than specific knowledge that should drive our legislation.
Plus, most people with "education" in a field will
claim the ability to make better decisions. This education is market driven,
and not motivated by truth unless the market rewards accurate, unbiased
information.
Take economics, for example. The biggest employer of
economists is the Federal Reserve. Like the alchemists of old, these rascally
intellectuals buy into a completely fictitious notion... that you can create
money from thin air... or out of lead, as the alchemists believed. In the
heyday of alchemy, many scholarly types insisted that the layman, who doubted
the wisdom of the alchemists, was unrefined and uneducated. A college cannot
attract many students to a class that says, "Alchemy is bullshit" or
"The best monetary policy is non-intervention by the state" or
"None of these sophisticated economic models that we teach you have ever
actually worked". All of these notions would kill the entire fields of
curriculum.
Plus, over a three-year period ending in October 1994,
the Fed awarded 305 contracts to 209 professors worth a total of $3 million.
Wow... that's about 15k per professor.
Plus, to get tenure, you must publish. One critical way the
Fed exerts control on academic economists is through its relationships with the
field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary Economics, a
must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half of the editorial board
members are currently on the Fed payroll -- and the rest have been in the past.
"Knowledge" is easily perverted by self interest.
The assumption that individual scholar can make better decisions is wholly
dependent on the subject of inquiry and the incentives to mislead.
If the subject of inquiry is highly technical, then I agree
with Hamid. It is in the best interest of society to hire one or more
researchers to investigate the topic. There are many ways to make this work
well, but there are far more ways to screw it up... like letting
representatives choose the investigators (unless we structure incentives to
reward politicians for effective, honest choices... a far cry from
the current situation).
We need the knowledge, but we need to guard against
interested dogma, and letting intellectuals have more say is, like Jim said,
manipulable.
- Vanity is hemlock to those who seek truth. Be careful
what you consume.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Lata Gouveia
<latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
Do you agree that people who have more knowledge about a topic should have more
say in a decision about that topic?
Lata
http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/raw-initiatives/
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
proto-socio-neurological enculturations and as useful fictions
are not necessarily symbiotic with, nor necessarily benignly
adjuvant to the welfare of their unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans.
Freedom in humans consists of the ability to liberate
oneself from the tyranny of reificationalist imprinting.
Antonio Rossin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
. . .
Antonio Rossin.
*********************************
|