Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

[Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>]

It seems to me that DD is more attainable using the 

consensus--seeking nested network principles of sociocracy

(several google links)

than any multi-party, one-party or other majority-vote system,

–Doug

===

On 16/11/2009, at 4:13 AM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:

Hi Jim

If voters don't trust or are not satisfied with what politicians do, they should be able to take their political destiny in their own hands. Nobody is allowed to make decisions
in behalf of you in your private life as long as you have not officially and lawfully accepted be represented by others, with execption for children and mentally sick people.
Why should this be allowed in political systems.
I feel that you are worry for politicians to loose their power and easy earned advantages by changing the political system to DD but I don't understand why.
Do you work as politician or are there any other reasons for that?
Everybody should be able to bring up political questions important for him / her for discussion and voting without asking politicians to permit it. Of course for people
who prefer it there should be possibile to let others (you can call them politicians) to represent them in some or all questions but this does not mean an obligation for
everybody. As you told before politicians are employees of voters, so if voters like they can fire their employees and take the political power in theri own hands.

Do you agree?
Hamid

---

From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0200
Subject: RE: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hi Vijayaraghavan,

We do not have to have an alternative to political parties. This would be imposing an alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the average person can get on with his/her life.

Voters just need the power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies need to be in this direction

Regards

Jim Powell South Africa

From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: 15 Nov 2009 04:57 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

For people to be really able to do this, an independent setup (free from party influence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an alternative to political parties.

Vijayaraghavan



On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:12:23 +0530 wrote

Hamid,

Thatis exactly the point of DD.  If people have the power to make decisions, makemistakes,

learnfrom their mistakes, and then correct them, they will ultimately mature into

grownupcitizens.   Otherwise, we live in our parent's house forever.

B. T.Marking

www.sdindie21.org

---

From: Hamid Mohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 13, 20093:16 AM
>To: World Direct Democracy
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree

Outcome of bad laws decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and make them to changethe law later on
>by new refrandoms.
>
>Regards
>

---

From: parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:31:02 -0800
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Good point. The removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout history.

What is a bad law? Should they be judged by theirintentions or their outcomes?

Or, does a law become “good” if it issupported by a majority of the people, or their representatives?

If a people are unjust or immoral, should a democracyallow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure?

For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdooradvertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? It violatesproperty rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public in general.Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to besuperseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslimchurches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this isalready the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of theconstitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politicianwould be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, but politically, aloser).

So…

Should good law based on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), or should it be based on the public will? Or both?Or neither? Or something else? Be very specific.

Parrhesia

P.S.

Our current system makes it very possible for ourprejudices to work their way into law. As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power, the representatives tend to give them what theywant. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government willlatch onto it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill, $700Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a measure that limitspower, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits forcongress have had over 50% public support for over half of the last 100 years,and no congress has ever acted on it.

From: wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net]
>Sent: Sunday, November 08, 20099:05 AM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree

Andthe repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have

outgrowntheir usefulness.

B.Thomas Marking

---

From: Joseph Hammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, November 07, 200910:52 PM
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

A stable, fair and productive government should promotethe formation of new laws and changes to existing ones.

(To keep them fresh, one might suppose?)

Parrhesia